Redstate

.....it will take a nationwide bloodbath - meaning a loss of the presidency, 8-10 seats in the Senate, and another 30 in the House. If that's the case, who cares who our leader is? I think you're wrong, Erick.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Rs are behind in VA, NH, CO, and NM. The other seats that look competitive are OR, MN, KY. Longshots are TX, ME, AK and MS.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

If I had to predict today (which is meaningless), I'd say Republicans lose NH, VA, & OR. They also lose one of the following: NM, CO, MN. Even the most pessimistic folks are not predicting a McConnell loss - he's a long-time incumbant Senate leader in a red state. I also think that we stand a good chance at picking up LA. TX, ME, AK, & MS will go GOP.

Basically, I see a 3 seat loss. Worst case scenario, perhaps a 6-7 seat loss, but I view that as unlikely. If Hillary is the nominee, I predict nothing more than a 3 seat loss, and perhaps even better than that.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I'm surprised you don't have New Mexico in your list of states the GOP will lose. Udall (is it Tom or Mark?) is way ahead against both Republican congressman. Polling shows that VA, NH and NM are likely losses. CO leans Dem, and MN and OR are basically toss-ups. ME is safe, I think.

I haven't seen any polls on AK, but I wouldn't be surprised if Steven's "ethical" issues hurt him a bit up there. Not sure if the Dems have a credible candidate against him though.

As for LA, has anyone seen any polls? Landreiu should be the most vulnerable Dem, and I assume she is, but I haven't seen a poll yet.

....he is very left-wing and early polls show that race competitive. Unfortunately, I don't have a link right now, but Schaeffer is popular in Colorado and is quite competitive. New Mexico is hard to say since there aren't really clear candidates on both sides, but Steve Pearce is polling strong early. It's so early, it's tough to say, but CO & NM are not write-offs at all.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Tom Udall is running in NM, polls show him leading Pearce and Wilson.

Mark Udall is running in CO, polls show him tied with Schaffer or barely ahead.

is running in NM and is up 20 points in most polls to start.

Udall in CO is up by less but still ahead.

McConnell is ahead but under 50 even in one of the friendly polls. KY is not really a red state. The Presidential race looks closer than in 2004 unless Giuliani is the nominee. KY, MO, OH, and the midwest seem to have been shifting D in the past 2-4 years.

McConnell is not a safe incumbent, but he is in the lead.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

....if Kentucky is not a red state anymore, than the GOP is dead. We might as well pack up shop and quit. If OH & MO go Dem, than the GOP is done for good and so is conservatism. If that is the case, then I am not donating, volunteering, or even voting in 2008.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I still don't think people here have really woken up to what has happened post 2004. If things don't change, then yes Ds will win the White House and both houses of Congress. They have a good shot Presidentially and Senatorially winning KY. They already won SEN seats in OH and MO and are ahead in the Presidential race in both states.

Yes, that is cause for alarm among Rs. And yes there is too much focus on the 2004 map and not enough on the 2006 map. If you start with 2006 as your base, I think you have a better feel for what is "red" and "purple." Rs are not competitive in almost any House districts that Kerry won. Ds are competitive in 50-80 Bush CDs.

Independents have jumped toward the Ds by 10-20 points and that swings elections. Rs have done very little to win them back in the mean time.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

...after 2004, all the pundits were saying this was the end of the Democrat party and we were looking at a permanent GOP majority. Two short years later, it is now the GOP that is going the way of the Whigs. To think that 2008 is already going to be a repeat of 2006 is silly. The Senate, for sure, is going to be difficult for the GOP mostly just because we are defending twice as many seats. At this time in 2005, no one would have thought that the Dems would sweep in 2006. Hell, not even in June of 2006 did they think that. Now, people are saying there will be a permanent left-wing Democrat majority? I don't see that logic. Perhaps you should read this piece by Jim Geraghty:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmU4OGRhYTBjODE5YzYzZTA2MGVmNzM4OWQ...

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Unlike most people, I think polls are rather accurate if done correctly. And polls before 2006 did show Rs doing poorly. If I could find the post where the editors made predictions for 2006, it would show how insanely optimistic they were. I was the second most pessimistic and I was far more optimistic than reality.

I see that happening again. Party ID numbers have gone from 37-37 in 2004 to 50-33 now. That's insane and almost impossible to surmount.

Independents have not warmed to Rs at all since 2006. And honestly from a non-partisan perspective, why should they vote R? Rs best pitch to indies was fiscal responsibility and anti-corruption. But after the meltdown and continued pork-barreling (still going today), what should Is see in Rs?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

.....like one's showing Michael Dukakis up 17 pts. on Bush 41 early in 1988? There is still something called a "campaign" to run. The issues in 2008 will be far different than in 2006. In 2008, candidates will be talking about taxes, illegal immigration, judges, etc. There will be a big campaign by the GOP the illustrate the secular left-wing agenda the Democrats have in mind for the U.S. should they be handed the reins of power. 2006 was the apex of Bush hatred and Iraq hatred.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I don't remember exactly when it happened, but there were a number of warnings being given to the Republican leadership well in advance of the 2006 election.

And of course, the leadership ignored them, leading directly to the 2006 outcome. And it appears that the leadership still hasn't learned. So please don't try and stop people from sounding the warnings. I don't mean to be all doom and gloom, but I feel "if we don't shape up we're doomed" isn't at all inappropriate.

...but it's also worth noting that there will be a completely different set of dynamics at play in 2008 than there were in 2006. There will be different issues discussed, Bush will not be on the ballot, and Iraq will likely not be an issue like it was in 2006 (at least not nearly as bad of one for the GOP).

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

First, Bush wasn't on the ballot in 2006. Is fled to the Ds at big margin anyway. And why you think Iraq is more favorable to Rs now than then I don't understand (unless McCain is nominated who can credibly say he criticized the strategy at the time and supports the new strategy now).

Second, I still don't see any argument from the optimists about why Is who voted D in 2006 are going to vote R in 2008? Hispanics and Independents are the two groups who moved the most in 2006. Nothing has changed to win them back.

If the data showed that conservatives didn't show up in 2006, this would be a different dilemma. But that isn't what happened. Rs voted R and at a good clip. Is went from about 50-50 to roughly 65-35. That flipped the country from 51-48 R to 47-53.

Until someone can explain to me how Rs in general can win back these voters with health care, Iraq, and general economic unease being the main issues in the media, I will continue to point out the misplaced optimism of 2006 as a model for what is going on.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I guess I just disagree. The Democrats are poised to nominate a polarizing, unlikeable left-wing woman who voted for the war, and the Republicans are likely to nominate an outsider who didn't vote for the war.

Second, I am unaware of misplaced optimism in 2006. Most people thought the GOP would lose, it was just a matter of how bad. Bush WAS on the ballot, in that he was the sitting president at the time, and 2006 was in large part a referendum on his perceived job performance at that time. The Dems also ran a lot of conservatives who ran to the right on Republicans on issues like immigration and spending, among other things.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying 2008 is going to be a cakewalk, but you make it sound like we should just fold up the tent right now. I maintain the GOP has at least a 50/50 shot at the presidency (and that increases in Hillary is the nominee), and at least a decent shot of making good gains in the House. We'll have a lot clearer picture once the primaries are over (in all races, not just POTUS) and the campaign heats up.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

My point is that if we do the same things we did in 2006 (we are) and expect a different outcome (we do) then we are getting close to the definition of insane.

We need to change something and to do that we have to acknowledge the position we are in.

I think it's going to take President Hillary, 56 Ds in the Senate, and a wider D margin in the House to wake up some people on this. Of course, the next day I expect a bunch of lamentations that "if only we had run as true conservatives, then we would win everywhere." But after that, hopefully Rs will reflect on why they are losing.

The anti-liberal coalition that won from the 80s through 2006 has cracked up. Indies are now joining the anti-conservative coalition. And I still don't see anyone even discussing how to win them back.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You certainly do like to be the naysayer pessimist-in-chief here at Redstate. Or at least it seems that way.

There is A LOT about your analysis that is correct, yet you also seem to gloss over history. To have lost less seats in a 6th year of a President's time in office seems to be considerably overlooked.

To have lost by the narrow margins we did doesn't mean we should be afraid of the future. It means that we have to determine why those voters switched. You seem to think it's because they hate "conservatives." Or at least that is nearly your entire basis. So should we be less conservative and run like there isn't a difference between the Republican and Democratic Party at the top of the ticket?

There fundamentally is a difference, and I maintain a large one. From taxes to role of government to defense, the differences are large.

I do not believe we are in for a 40 year Democrat majority in the House. Ideally, it'd be nice to get it back from the 2010 census but we can do what we have to do. We have to win on ideas and the better sale of those ideas.

The independents you mention so hate politics they vote for whomever seems to be able to define the issue, and Democrats get help from the MSM.

I've been on this earth a little over a quarter of a century and I've never seen it EVER said on TV, the Internet, radio, whatever...that being a conservative was cool, or smart, or hip or trendy, or anything of the sort.

When we are branded the way we are branded, our work is ALWAYS that much harder. But it's made a bit easier by the reality that we are more often right then the liberals are.

In 2006 we faced the perfect storm of opposition to the Iraq war, which cost us votes in blue states (and some in purple ones), and opposition to the drunken sailor spending habits of the House and Senate in purple and red ones, and corruption issues which cost us votes everywhere.

But the problem is that it's a lot harder to gain a foothold in opposing territory than it is to hold what you have. So those lost seats in blue country are basically lost for awhile. And taking the Iraq war off the table won't be enough to make inroads back into them. And spending and corruption are definitely still factors.

So I don't see a whole lot of chance for gain there, our best hope, I think, is a holding action until our leadership gets a clue. I've seen no signs that that's going to happen for 2008 yet.

I heard John McCain at Clemson University this morning.

He handled every question ably except one: "How do we pay to stay in Iraq?"

He offered only that he would cut gov't spending like the 21 Billion Dollar recent water resources bill.

Voters are going to want to know specifics and they want to hear about a lot more savings than 21 Billion. Ofcourse the question applies equally to the Democrats. But Iraq won't be off the table.

There is about as much chance as McConnell will lose as there was George Allen pre-Mcaca. As long as McConnell doesn't start spewing racial slurs, he'll be fine.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

McConnell is polling around 48-41 in his race. I recall Allen polling more like 52-38 pre-Macaca. That's a 5-10 point difference. Here is an early poll with Allen up 50-30. That is a much more comfortable margin.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Polls aren't everything, and you can't base your chances of winning on polls exclusively. Especially one poll done when a bunch outside groups are beating the tar out of him and he's doing nothing because it's not even worth it.

Also, I don't think that he's even got a serious opponent yet. The poll you are referring to was his approval/disapproval. That's hardly numbers to get excited about, having his approval below 50, but it's not that bad either. Usually, incumbents poll 2-5% better then their approval ratings. And like I said, you can't beat someone with no one. If Ben Chandler were running, it might be difficult. But that's not happening. Actually, in this sense, he's a lot safer then Allen, because even with Mcaaca, Allen only lost because he had a high profile opponent.

Beyond that McConnell has a great organization, he's got a huge bankroll, and there is absolutely no chance in hell that Hillary will win KY (Obama could win KY, but he won't get the nomination.)

The D's will make a lot of noise, but it's just noise. Even if they did have a realistic chance, they have better races to spend their money on.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Republicans are going to lose EVERY election they are in if there is a Democratic candidate in the race?

You would rather believe an online poll than history and what savvy politicos in the homestate tell you.

There's being a blind cheerleader and then there's being a rational student of what's really going on.

We are Republicans...maybe we could actually project a bit of confidence in the rightness of being Republicans...

I'll buy you an american flag to wave instead of the white flag you're currently sportin'.

Come on Adam... be a bit more optimistic... people like perceived winners, you are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

First, nope. I think Rs are safe in OK, ID, and NC right now among others.

Second, I don't believe online polls at all. They are unreliable. I do believe telephone polls b/c over the long term they have been very reliable. They are the best predictor of an election outcome that I have found.

Third, I wish more people were not blind cheerleaders and most of my effort is being a rational student. But "projecting confidence" is more cheerleading than rational analysis.

Fourth, I have an American Flag thank you very much... it's next to my OU flag.

I don't want to be right and I didn't want to be right in 2008. I want people to realize that Rs are behind and they can lose. And I really don't want to see a unified Democratic government in 2008.

But readers, commenters, diarists, and editors here are obsessing over which R candidate is more pro-life while Ds are finding new Senate races to compete in (NE, TX, NC, and MS still need big Ds to jump in). Where are the diaries on getting a challenger to Pryor (AR) or Rockfeller (WV)?

And the idea that b/c Bush won somewhere in 2000 and 2004 then no D could win the state will lead Rs to overlook places and candidates that need support, like KY and MO.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Sununu is solidly conservative. I don't know by what criterion you would call him anything else.

Coleman is also at worst middle of the caucus. He has swerved left lately somewhat because of the political environment, but I still wouldn't say he's part of the left-wing of the caucus.

You're right on the rest.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

The fact that Sununu is in the middle of the caucus signals that the caucus is pretty conservative, and fairly unified on most votes. Sununu is like the rest of the caucus and doesn't stand out as being right of it like, say, Coburn or DeMint.

If you take all 49 GOP Senators, there's only a few who are to the left of Coleman - Collins, Smith, Specter, maybe a couple of others depending on the issue.

Compared to the middle of the D caucus - Rockefeller, say - Coleman is quite conservative.

He had never held elective office before. If GOV Napolitano had run and with the D turnout in AZ in 2006, I think she would have won by a decent margin (47-53 or so).

And "solid, thoughtful" Republicans like Sen. Talent (MO), Dewine (OH), and Santorum (PA) did lose.

Electability is not very tied to solidness nor thoughtfulness.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

DeWine was the squishiest of the squishy conservatives. Not even close to solidly conservative.

You are right about Talent and Santorum, but Talent wasn't even a full-term Senator, and Santorum was always an anomaly who was just waiting for history to catch up with him.

Kyl was a two term Senator from a state that leans R harder then any of the other states you mentioned. He would have, and will if confronted in the future, beat JN.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

To win a statewide office in MO, a Republican generally needs to have about a 10% advantage among legitimate voters. The vote fraud in St. Louis is astounding. There are actually organized busloads of people from East St. Louis that travel from precinct to precinct, with on registered voter on the bus to "vouch" for the others.

Unless Republicans both return to their conservative roots ideologically, and re-learn how to effectively communicate their positions(and aggressively demonstrate the liberals insane distortions of them) we are looking at a permanent GOP minority. This isn't pessimism, it is realism. Later I'll write a longer post further expanding on this arguement.

And I'll continue to say, the biggest threat to Republicans is economic populism. I live in PA, very near the Ohio border. I am in PA and Ohio media markets. I saw Santorum and Dewine, as well as Melissa Hart, get pounded with commercials slamming them for colluding with the Bush administration to send jobs overseas, or tax breaks to oil companies, etc. Yes, Santorum would almost certainly have lost anyway, and Dewine too. But Melissa Hart should not have.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.