2006 Senate Races
Posted by Moonage on 18 Nov 2004 | Tagged as: Senate Races
Polipundit ponders the fate of these races for the 2006 Senate:
First, I’ll do the easy ones:
-
Hillary Clinton, unbeatable in New York. Rudy won’t run.
-
Bill Nelson won’t run. If Jeb does, it’s his. Most likely will be Kathleen Harris, who most likely would polarize the Democrats. She would be well funded and probably excellently coordinated. This prediction is conditional on Jeb running or not. It’s Republican if Jeb runs, Democrat if Kathleen runs.
-
Mark Dayton, safe
-
The only reason to speculate on Kent Conrad is he is a Democrat in North Dakota, which sounds like South Dakota, which reminds us of Daschle going down in flames. But, being Democrat isn’t what killed Tom, his detachment from local issues was. And, I’ve not read any of that criticism from North Dakota. Unless some very big player jumps in, Kent’s safe for now.
And, the more difficult guesses:
-
Maria Cantwell. Slade Gorton gave her everything she could handle in 2000. However, by 2006 Gorton will be 78 years old. Two rules of thumb apply here, very old very wealthy people usually don’t run for first time offices, and, very old candidates don’t win unless re-elected. The demographics of Washington are not changing significantly, which is heavy Democrat in registration and voting preference. I stick with Cantwell on this one unless someone very popular decides to run against her.
-
Ben Nelson’s going to have a heck of a fight on his hands, and he knows it. Governor Mike Johanns’ term expires in 2006. He’s popular, he’s in the majority party, he’s got the grassroots organization in place, and he’ll be well funded by the RNC. If Johanns runs, he wins.
-
Why Stabenow is here I don’t know. I see nothing to speculate she’s in any trouble.
Final tally, Republicans +2 based on this short list. As we learned in 2004, a LOT can happen in two years, just ask Tom Daschle.
10 Comments »
on 28 Nov 2004 at 7:20 pm 1.Matt Boyle said …
It depends on whom the GOP nominates.
Washington: Nethercutt would lose, but former house majority leader Jennifer Dunn would win.
Clinton: Pataki or Giuliani would crush her.
Conrad: Ed Schaffer or Hoeven (the governor) would win if well funded.
Dayton: He’s a gonner. He’s viewed as apathetic to his job, and he is not well liked.
Florida: Either Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush would win. This state is beyond safe for the GOP.
Nebraska: Either the guy will switch to the GOP or he will lose to Mike Johanns (the governor,) who is wildly popular.
Michigan: If they get Spence again, or a more moderate, well known GOP person, liberal Stabenow is gone. But most Republicans will probably wait for Carl Levin to retire, so Stabenow is probably safe.
However,I think Christine Todd-Whitman will win the NJ senate seat, and I expect Tommy Thompson to win the open Wisconson seat. Therefore, the GOP should pick up 8/9 seats, as these democrats are really a poor crop.
on 28 Nov 2004 at 8:43 pm 2.Moonage
said …
Interesting takes. Especially New Jersey. I hadn’t heard Christine Todd-Whitman was even pondering a run, but it would make sense. Hope she does, she knows the system well and is highly respected.
In Nebraska I really don’t see Nelson switching. IMO, he’s retiring from elected office and taking the easy road by becoming a lobbyist.
Bottom line is always who the party nominates. But, the problem is usually getting quality candidates to nominate from. IMO, that is the problem the Democrats are having now. I don’t particularly know why, but to have as many voting majorities as they do, they just can’t seem to get any traction with attractive slates of candidates.
Thanks for the comments, even if I don’t agree with them all, I enjoy them.
on 24 Dec 2004 at 9:34 pm 3.Matt Boyle said …
The dems had great candidates this year–far better ones than the GOP. The problem is that a lot of voters this year voted along party lines. As a hard-core conservative, Ines Tenenbaum was a far better candidate than Jim DeMint. Brad Carson was far superior to Tom Couborn. Mongiardo had a sane brain and Jim Bunning didn’t. All of these Democrats ran far closer campaigns than they ought to have, considering the margins by which Bush carried the respective states. The Republicans failed to field availible, good candidates in North Dakota, Arkansas, and Washington state, the latter two against fairly weak incumbents. The problem this year was just a geographical one: more races were conducted in red states than blue ones. If states went by strict party lines (meaning that states within a ten point margin in this election split senators and states above a ten point margin gave both senators to the respective party,) the Republicans would have 71 seats in the senate. Therefore, the Democrats MUST be putting up better candidates overall, because they have held the GOP to 55 seats, a difference of SIXTEEN!
on 24 Dec 2004 at 10:39 pm 4.Moonage
said …
“Mongiardo had a sane brain and Jim Bunning didn’t. All of these Democrats ran far closer campaigns than they ought to have, considering the margins by which Bush carried the respective states.”
The problem with that scenario, as I point out in several other posts, is if Mongiardo was a superior candidate ( I’m not arguing whether he actually is or not ), he should have carried a state that is 2.5 to 1 DEMOCRAT. I live in Kentucky, as bad as Bunning’s campaign was, Mongiardo was even worse. He had a chance to paint himself as the sane good guy, but took off attacking EVERYONE. I mean, he even ran attack ads against Rush Limbaugh. As looney as Bunning made himself look, Mongiardo came accross as very unpleasant. Several Democrats did win in the state, so the Bush coattail argument doesn’t apply. Mongiardo didn’t even carry his own party. In every essence of the political world, he was a lousy candidate. Good guy, well respected, but lousy at running a campaign. Democrats still hold majorities in most states, 38 I think it was at last count. For them to only hold 45 seats in the senate is indicative of the candidates they are running. If they carried their own party voters en masse, they should have about 70 seats in the Senate. Kentucky is the perfect example. 2.5 to 1 Democrat majority in registered voters. 0 US Senators, 1 US Representative of six, the Governor is Republican, the Senate is a Republican majority. They still hold the house, but not by much and slipping every election. What other reason would you suggest that at least half of the Democrats are now voting Republican on a regulat basis? Just because some states are “red” in the presidential election doesn’t mean they are Republican states. There is something going on, search “demographics” on my Google up there and you’ll get my opinion of what it is.
on 06 Mar 2005 at 5:06 am 5.Bryan Kerwick
said …
President Bush is very aware of the importance of the Senate races.Don’t be surprised if Carl Rove is behind the scene running these campaigns. The Republicans have a ton of cash and can raise an unlimited amount from lobbists. Usually the head of those commities get the green. This time it will go to those running in the Senate races.The 2 most important domestic issues that will forever change this country are getting conservative judges on the floor for a vote and the changes in Social Security. We need to get to 60 votes in the senate to prevent democrats from using filibuster tactics.If all goes well in the Senate races, expect Bush to nominate hard core right wing judges that are young. This will change the landscape forever. Liberals will no longer have the ability to use thr aclu to get law passed via liberal judges. They will actually have to get law passed by congress as was intended by our forefathers who wrote the constitution. Democrats are so out of touch with America(reality) their (Hollywood’s) agenda will be meaningless since they don’t have the votes and no longer will have the judges. Basically this election is for all the marbles and the Republicans must prevail.
What say you?
Bryan Kerwick
bryankerwick@comcast.net
on 06 Mar 2005 at 9:59 pm 6.Moonage
said …
I would be surprised if Carl Rove wasn’t involved in most of the races.
on 11 Mar 2005 at 12:38 pm 7.Even said …
Bryan,
I have to say you are precisely what scares me about Republicans. Politics is about winning to you people not about advancing the good of the country for all citizens. I don’t understand where all your anger and mean spiritedness comes from. Has this country been so bad to you? Why is it that it is so hard for you to accept that others may have a different view of this country and it purpose?
Your opinions appear to come straight from the Rush Limbaugh Republican School of blame everyone for my person failings. Blame the Democrats for every perceived wrong, blame minorities for every perceived slight; blame the poor for every perceived lost opportunity.
It is long past time for Republicans to get back to what they used to be about. Strong fiscal management and sound military policy.
Even
on 20 Jun 2005 at 5:35 pm 8.Itsa Secret said …
Even,
I’m all for the Republican party returning to their fiscally-conservative roots, but that’s about the only part of your post I agree with.
“Politics is about winning to you people not about advancing the good of the country for all citizens.” I want to see my party win precisely because I think it’ll be in the best interest of the country. That’s the motivation behind my cheering for Republican candidates, and feeling happy when they win.
I think the Democrats are misguided at best. I worry that many of their policies will hurt this country.
I accept, and understand, that everyone is entitled to their opinions, just don’t be surprised if I advocate my opinion loudly. I think it’s the right one, not just for me, but for the country.
on 17 Jul 2005 at 11:58 pm 9.JAKEDOG said …
I’d say keep it the same at 55-44 as long as the GOP picks up 3 Democrat seats and then proceed to work AGAINST Chaffee, Snowe, and De Wine.
on 19 Jul 2005 at 3:39 am 10.Bryan Kerwick
said …
EVEN:
I was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. I know first hand what the Democratic policies have done to this country and that City in particular.
NYC is the largest Real Estate holder in the city. Low income housing is horrific. The idea of free markets and not Rent Control is the only answer. The city builds massive buildings ( we call them the projects) which are the most miserable form of existance. These properties are so run down, if they belonged to the private sector, the owners would be fined into bankruptcy and in most cases jailed. There is no hope of suitable housing in the city as long as the city is the landlord.
The Republican Party is the one that appoints women and minorities to high level cabinet positions and the Bench based solely on merit. The Clinton appointments can not make that claim with the exception of the ACLU lawyer Ginsberg.
Minority home ownership is at an all time high under this administration. Unemployment is at an all time low with minorities holding more jobs than ever before. The economy is the strongest in the world by far. Trade deficits are dwindling. The Budget Deficit is down 100Billion more than expected. Tax revenues are up 41% from individuals and 15% from Corporations sibce the tax cuts the Liberals loathe so much. Schools are now accountable for results and failure to reach those goals costs federal money and loss of control of the school. The excessively powerful teachers union is livid about these changes and the students are now actually getting educated or the staff and teachers get pink slips like they would in the private sector.
Our welfare system prior to the Clinton reforms were and still are a form of slavery. IMO since there is no way out based on the current rules. The most obsurd is that a family with a few children and an unskilled father working three jobs trying to make a life but coming up short is a tragedy. These families are doing their absolute best and need just a little help until Dad gets some pay raises. The cost to the taxpayer in these situations would be minimal and temporary but the way the laws are written, in order to get any help, Momma has to throw this fine, hard working man out for her and her children to get assistance. This is entirely insane because they have no option but to go this route in order to feed their children. The results are young minority teenagers growing up without the presence of a father and ultimately turning to the streets. Take a wild guess on what the statistics are for single parent children growing up in the ghetto as far as education, teen pregnancy, drug use and criminal activity. Better still, check these disparities in your own back yard and you will be horrified by the differences between single mother families and nuclear families.
We Republicans as a whole are not the meanspirited racist heretics we seem to have a reputation of being.
We all want to improve society and both agree it needs a major overhaul to allow more opportunities for all citizens, we just have a completely different vision as to how we acheive this common goal. Everything that was done in the past costs way too much money for the return on investment. The Liberals way of doing things has been a complete failure to date. Why not give the Republicans a shot at it their way. If we also fail, you should have no problem getting back control of Congress and the White House.
This is our time now and we should be allowed to do things our way. After all, the citizens of this country have been demanding we keep our promises to make these sweeping changes every time they have gone to the ballot box for the last 5 elections.