Redstate

Dole has had a horrible run lining up the A list candidates. I don't think the White House has helped things. It's early on, but if the A listers see weakness, they will hold out (speaking mainly about Capito & Hoeven here). Can't says I blame them either.

Assuming it's not going to be a "bad, bad year," Republicans could realistically have tried for a 60-seat majority if they'd gotten their top tier. I think Nelson would have won in NE and Clinton in NY, but Hoeven and Capito could easily have won, and by all accounts Stabenow, Cantwell, and Nelson would be in hot water with the A list. That is, in a neutral year they probably would have lost.

Though I lean left, I've got to say it speaks pretty poorly of the Dems in the Senate that 60 Republicans would have been a real possibility.

I had pointed out that a 60R Senate was a possibility based on which seats were up in 2006.  But that was in Nov 2004 before the line-ups were set.  The "best case" scenario is now: FL, NJ, MD, and MN giving us 59 with no losses (PA, RI).

That would mean a significant shift in public opinion between now and Nov 2006 which is possible but unlikely.  In fact, it's about as likely as the "worst case" scenario where PA, RI, MO, TN, MN, MT, and OH all go D (and no others flip parties) and we lose the Senate.  Both have about a 1-5% chance of happening.

of course. But the recruiting is so crucial--safe seats can instantly become in play, and vulnerable seats can instantly become safe. To be fair, Republicans had a huge boost in Steele's candidacy and in Corzine's vacating his seat. Those are two very winnable seats that would have been far out of reach before.

We'll see what happens--my guess is, your estimate of a +1/-1 swing is right on target. If I had to bet, I'd bet on no change at all. Keep up the good analysis.

I'm not alone in this estimate.  Obviously, we're still in the 2nd inning so we have a ways to go.  But at least we know the line-ups now (more or less).

You are correct about MD and NJ.

I don't know if you caught my story on partisanship and its effect on recent Senate races.  I find myself referring back to it often.

If it continues to be a major effect, then the status quo is further cemented.  This is especially true in helping Ds win MD and NJ while it helps Rs hold on to MO, TN, and OH much more easily.  If that trend does continue, it helps Rs in the medium run.  But they have not taken advantage of the R-tilt in states (WV, ND, NE, FL) in this round of elections.

Of course, due to the 31 R vs 19 D states line-up (using 2004 Prez data) almost every round favors Rs at this point.

I'm interested in seeing if partisanship ship redstate = elect R to Senate (and vice versa) continues to be the dominant theme.  If it does, the nationalization of senate races will be almost completed.

but it looks dead-on. However, what I found interesting about this year's races is that some of the most enticing incumbents, the ones really bleeding in the water, were not in deep red states--Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson, all elected by a hair in 2000, when Dems just about swept the competitive Senate races. This is extraordinarily good news for Republicans. I'd say that if the state of the parties remains the same, the GOP could be in control of the Senate for a good while longer, simply by taking over in deep red states when Democrats retire and splitting the battleground states. Johnson, Conrad, Dorgan, Nelson NE, Landrieu, Byrd, Rockefeller, Baucus will probably be replaced by Republicans. Knock off weak battleground incumbents like Stabenow, Dayton, Nelson FL, Cantwell, et al and you've got a majority that would have been unimaginable in super-split 2000. This is, as you said, due in large part to the fact there are simply more red states. Thanks, Founding Fathers.

Of course, to get back to your original post...if the Republicans can't recruit the candidates to win these seats they should be winning, then Dems will still have a chance. But I think the natural balance in many ways favors the GOP and will for a while.

I also highly recommend Michael Barone's analysis and his blog.

Here is his recap on 2004 which influenced my opinion on the effects of partisanship.  Choice quotes:

"In a Senate controlled by a 55-seat GOP majority, there are nine Republicans from among the 19 states won by Mr. Kerry and 16 Democrats among the 31 states won by Mr. Bush. Mr. Barone reveals that in states where their party's nominee received less than 47 percent of the vote, there are 11 Democratic senators and only three Republicans. On the House side, where Republicans control 232 (53 percent) of the chamber's 435 seats, Mr. Bush carried 255 districts (59 percent) compared to Mr. Kerry's 180. Because the Voting Rights Act, by concentrating the minority vote, "tends to elect more blacks and Hispanics and less Democrats," Mr. Kerry won more than 80 percent of the vote in 20 districts, whereas Mr. Bush never achieved such a margin in a single one. A lot of Kerry votes in those minority-reserved districts "could have been put to work electing Democrats in adjacent districts; but thanks to the Voting Rights Act, they were not available for such duty," Mr. Barone noted. "In the long run," he concludes, "Republicans are well positioned to increase their numbers in both Senate and House.

to bring back Allen?

I wish I had his research resources. I bought the 2004 Almanac, but it's fifty bucks and to do that every 2 years is just not in a recent grad's budget.

All I ever hear from my friends in North Carolina is that they never see her and she does nothing. This is the same I heard about John Edwards, who could not even run for reelection because he was so unpopular.

I know several people who voted for her and have said they would very happily vote for Mike Easley if he challenges her for her Senate seat.

Dole has always been an empty power suit. Her career highlight was a talk show format at the 1996 Republican National Convention. As soon as I found out she was chairing NRSC I began to worry.

She was better than voting for Irksome Bowles. Don't know how she would match up against Easley, he's still popular (winning last year while the other senate seat and presidential ticket went R).

I think her recruitment has been poor.  But she has quite an impressive resume including cabinet posts and heading the Red Cross.  She seems smart and accomplished.  Maybe her constituent services are poor, but don't act like she has no qualifications.

Don't say that too loud!  She just might get a Supreme Court nomination.

Sorry but I don't think heading the Red Cross (far from a problem free organization) or being appointed to a Cabinet position is enough to deflect her from criticism. Her qualifications were:

• she was a woman (as was continuously pointed out by press in 2002)
• she was from North Carolina
• NCGOP felt there was no other candidates to replace Senator Helms
• her opponent was a boring, lightweight Clintonite in an anti-Clinton state

She had a difficult campaign against him anyway. Against a strong candidate, in a poor year for Republicans, I don't want to think of how she may have performed.

After her 2000 Presidential campaign I had assumed Republicans would make sure she would never be put in charge of anything beyond sending out fundraising letters, smiling for the cameras and voting with the President. A good Christian, a loyal wife and public servant, a vote on the right issues? Yes. Anything else? No. She inspires no confidence in me and I think we will have trouble holding onto that seat if the grumblings and apathy about her do not subside over the next three years.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/04/byrd.seat.ap/index.html?section=cnn_
latest

The point of the diary is that none of them are going to run.  They have all said no.  That's the problem.  Recruitment sucked.

follow through.  It took KKT to get Ehrlich in the governers mansion and he hasn't exactly been Mr. Popularity lately.  And Cardin is no KKT.

He polls very well.  He's a sharp politician and a gifted speaker.  It is a blue-leaning state.

I think much will matter on how Mfume handles losing.  If he makes it into a racial issue, Cardin could seriously be hurt by it.  And Mfume isn't exactly known for avoiding incendiary comments.  Also, if the long ballot of Ds splits the suburban and other white Dem vote, there is still a chance that Mfume could be the nominee.  Steele wins that race in a heartbeat.

I'm a big Steele fan in general.  I think he'd be a great addition to the Senate.  Hopefully, MDers will agree.

Bernie Sanders is running as an independent.  Even though he has been endorsed by Dean, there will be a Democrat in the race.  In Minnesota, Pawlenty beat an independent and a Democrat and became governor with 40% of the total vote.

In Vermont, Jim Douglas (GOP) became governor in a four-way race (Dem, GOP, Green, and Independent) with less than 50% of the vote.

If the GOP candidate can bring together the same coalition that put Douglas in the governor's mansion, we can still take Vermont.

We can still pick up 5 seats.  (Although I'm very concerned about Santorum's seat.  We need to do better work out there.)

to keep the socialist in the congress voting with the democrat caucus just for educational purposes! Lest their be any doubt about their ideological brethren.

That's our guy.

There are two other candidates.

But if Dubie could get in as Lt. Governor, he should be able to get in as Senator.

Also, we'll probably pick up Sanders' House seat.  Zephyr Teachout (Dean's internet guy) is running against a Progressive Party candidate and a Republican.  We can win this seat with 40% or more.

Isn't he the most socially conservative state official in Vermont? I respect him but would they elect him to the Senate?

Supposedly Dean has tried to make a deal to make sure no strong Democrat runs against Bernie Socialist.

Republicans were beginning to make a resurgence in Vermont in the 1990's, especially in 2000, but saw their fortunes decline in 2002 and lost seats to of all people Progressives in 2004.

and I agree that the only thing that could sink Cardin is a brutal battle with Mfume.  My feeling on Steele however is that he's never been tested.  The only statewide office he's ever held he's been appointed to, so it's hard to say how he'll fair on the campaign.  Cardin's been elected in MD again and again.

Additionally, I think Steele's gonna have a lot of Ehrlich/Bush baggage

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, stop counting on winning MD with Steele.  The D's have a black horse candidate they are keeping tight to their belt in the event the numbers go south.  To the national party: STAY OUT OF MD, you have done nothing for us in the past and have no understanding of politics here.  As a side note, even if I am wrong and Steele does win, that will mean losing the governor's office.  Net result: the national party will get a black member of the senate, and all of us in MD will get screwed by the national party, again.  The governor's office is the only thing standing in the way of my taxes going up (again) and my rights being taken (even further).  Stop treating MD republicans like expendable line items.

Not sure where all the bitterness is coming from regarding Dole and the NRSC, but for what it's worth...

Heading the Dept. of Transportation and Labor are great qualifiers and the Red Cross doesn't hurt either.  She trounced Bowels in '02 b/c she killed him in debates.  Dole stood for SS private accounts while Bowles tried to scare seniors.  She's been all over NC and would wipe the floor with Easley, a do nothing Gov. who created a gas scare becuase he's an idiot.

As for the NRSC, I have no clue how the committee actually works, but from the news accounts I've seen the GOP has been pretty agressive.  There's McGavick in WA, Steele in MD, Kean Jr in NJ, and that millionaire in NE.  They also tried to get everyone under the sun to run in FL and MI.  Wha's Dole supposed to do when NE GOPers are oppenly supporting Nelson?  

As for WV and ND, did anyone actually think that Hoeven or Capito were going to run?  It seemed like Dole did the work to get them in though.  I read one article that said that she met several times with both Shelley and her father Arch Moore.  And she gave Hoeven her ticket to the inauguration!  That sounds pretty aggressive to me.

I don't think it's fair to blame one person when things could actually be much worse in the current political climate.  There's still a ways to go before next November.  Heck, maybe we'll even take some blue state!

Only my honest opinion. I think she has had a mediocre career, ran an average campaign in a Republican leaning state and has been a mediocre senator. None of which warranted her election as chairman of NRSC.

I think John Hoeven would have run in most election years. He did not this year and part of the reason is her inability to persuade him to take the risk. That is the job of the NRSC chairman. Even Frist, not the most brilliant politician as of late, recruited stellar candidates.

He's running for President (he won't admit it, but now that Warner's out of that race, that's the only reason why he'd possibly be raising as much cash as he is).

Adam, I don't esp have any opinion on Liddy Dole.  She's not impressed me.  But I know when real quality candidates like Pat Toomey are told to go grab the ankles for the sake of ....... well........  somebody remind me again, WHY did the party back Specter over Toomey in PA?...... well, it has some dampening effect on future quality conservatives to run.  When the RSC is considered a toilet for the party establishment, being a bona fide conservative starts getting lonely.

The same reason conservatives are PO'ed over the play-to-the-lowest-denominator pick for SCOTUS is IMO the same reason that the good guys are staying on the sidelines.  They think that administration and party support is so much self-serving lip service, and that betrayal can come at any moment.  They don't want to sacrifice careers, so they wait it out until the party pulls its head out of its arse.

Can you just see the Republican nominee for president in 2008?

"Your party, Ms. Clinton, supports communists.  Exhibit A, your national chairperson, Mr. Dean, explicitly endorsed a communist for the Senate seat in Vermont.  What say you?"

"I have in my pocket a list of communists who are United States Senators.  I believe that we need to have hearings in order to know how widespread this insidious menace of communism is in the Senate.  I will begin by subpoenaing Senator Sanders of Vermont, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, and Senator Kennedy of Massachussets.  There are four or five other Democrats who will answer to my subpoenas later."

"Ms. Clinton, are you now or have you ever been a member of a group which caucuses with Senator Sanders?  Remember now, you ARE under oath."

I'd say the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of one President Bush, who has taken a re-election mandate and squandered it with poor choices.

He could have picked tax reform and two strong Supreme Court nominees, and had a base all fired up to fight for a filibuster-proof majority.

He instead picked Social Security reform and to ciphers for the Supreme Court, and got a base fractured and demoralized.

Who'd want to be a Republican standard-bearer in this climate?

We all b***h about our guys, but the Dems arent getting all their A team either.  The fact that we can talk about NJ and MD, that they have to get the new John Kerry in OH, and we still have hopes of keeping RI is not all that bad. Plus, no credible candidates showed up for them in ME and IN and their top hopes passed in NV, VA and AZ.  No, Dole didnt do the greatest, but dont buy into the crap that my old Sen Chuckie did a bang up job.

Who were the top candidates in NV and AZ who declined to run?

the b team in WV (former WV basketball coach Gale Catlett, as much a household name in WV as Grand Cyclops Byrd), WA (safeco CEO Mcgavick I think his name is) and now Katherine Harris has pulled within 4 points in a rapidly trending Rep Fl, things may not be as bleaak as we fear.  Also, can things stay this bad for 13 months?  The MSM may have started the hammering too early.

In NV, state assembly speaker Richard Perkins took a pass and is going to run for governor because Reid basically is walking away from this race, and without him going full throttle...

in AZ it was Attorney General Terry Goddard.  AZ Dem head Pederson had to resign to run.  He is a self-financier, but since all the Unions he deals with are picketing him as we speak, well I wouldnt want to be a Dem with  that going on.

Okay.

Carter is perhaps not the best candidate in Nevada, I will agree about that. Perkins would be a better candidate. Dina Titus is still running though, is she not?

As far as Arizona goes, I dunno. There might not be the best circumstances surrounding Pedersen right now, but many folks seem to think he is a very strong candidate and will pose a genuine threat to Kyl. I'm a late-comer to that group; I started out thinking Kyl would walk away with the race. Now I am not so sure.

the NV Dems are all concentrating on statewide offices with Titus also looking at Governor.  Without a major effort by Reid they have no hope.  And none is forthcoming which he has made clear to anyone who is listening.

Pederson is delusional so far.  His approach is to call Kyl  a "bad" Rep, while praising the "good" Rep McCain.  Do you think that McCain is going to agree with that or possibly refute it?  Plus he is pushing the so called Rep lite theory Howard Dean despises.

As for the many people playing this up, not the professionals like Cook or Rothenberg.  Think of Nethercutt v. Murray in WA state where we Rep's said its gonna be close.

I don't buy Cook or Rothenberg myself, so you don't have to tell me about all that. I understand completely where you are coming from.

What you might be missing about the Dean theory, since you have said that Pedersen running as "Rep-lite" is going against that, is that Dean has argued for Democrats to run campaigns based on the district, in this case Arizona.

You can't run like a Massachusetts Democrat in Arizona and expect to be elected. You have to run like an Arizona Democrat would, and if that means being "Rep-lite" in your book, then so be it.

nuff said.  trusting Howard Dean to win nationwide was a godsend to Rep's.  He was a "moderate" Gov in the Peoples Republic, whatever the he*l that means.

Kerry will never get elected in AZ, true enough, but if Pederson's strategy is McCain is the model for me, he's a loser more assuredly than the the no one running against Thomas in WY.  Because once again I reiterate, who is going to get the commercial with the arm around him saying, "heres the guy most like me", Kyl(R) or Pederson(D)?

And Rep lite isnt my term, I stole it from the good Dr.  He's the one who said Dems cant win doing that btw.

If it means anything to you, Dean really did govern as a moderate in Vermont, and he was pretty moderate on most issues in the 2004 campaign. It just so happens that we sort of tend to think moderates should behave in a certain manner, and he didn't behave that way.

The fact is, he took on the Bush administration, which advertised itself as being a conservative administration (we could debate all day as to whether they really are or ever were, as is taking place in several threads right now I am sure), and as a result he ended up looking rather liberal in comparison. Especially in his opposition to the war in Iraq.

But, Dean really wasn't the crazy left-winger that a lot of people have come to think he is. He was just a very in-your-face candidate, and he found a huge base of support, at least in the early going, with the crazy left-wingers within the party. He played to the crowd a little I think in the 2004 campaign. He knew who he was, but he also knew who his supporters were, and so he had to make a compromise I suppose.

I don't mean to defend Dean too much. I like him in some ways, I don't know if I'd want him running my party, and I don't really agree with him on all that much stuff, but for the sake of accuracy, I thought I should point these things out.

Now, Pedersen might be making a tactical mistake linking himself to McCain, just like John Kerry did, because when McCain then rejects Pedersen like he did Kerry and goes with the Republican candidate, in this case it'd be Kyl but in 2004 it was obviously Bush, then that's a big let down for the Democrat campaign which was looking for at least a wink and a nod from McCain in order to help drive over some moderates or moderate conservatives who are disappointed with the current leadership.

As it were, Jon Kyl is, in my opinion, in a heck of a lot better shape for re-election than George W. Bush was. Kyl has been rather consistent on his principles and has a lot to stand on come election time. He has shown time and time again that he is willing to stand up for his principles and do what's right regardless of whether or not many other senators will vote with him. Look at the Coburn amendment as a shining example.

Voters respect that. Even if they don't necessarily agree, they respect principled candidates who have a strong sense of right and wrong, and who consistently come down on the side of doing what they believe is right. It's the same reason why Russ Feingold gets elected time and time again up in Wisconsin. It's not even that people necessarily agree with everything he says; it's that they know the man has principles, at least politically, and he doesn't care if the rest of his party won't vote with him. Look at the Roberts confirmation, Ashcroft confirmation, even the Coburn amendment yet again. I don't agree with Russ Feingold about a lot, but I sure respect him politically because the man has principles.