|
||||
Switching seats. Interesting. I’m betting Enzi backs out
completely though. If he’s pissed enough at the leadership, he’s not going to want to go back period.Sounds a little like the North Dakota Senators.Not exactly the same situation, but for those who don’t know, in 1992, Kent Conrad decided not to run for re-election based on a campaign promise, so Byron Dorgan filed and ran. However, in September of 1992, the other Senator died, and Conrad ran for his seat, winning in a special election.I don’t know, but I’m guessing Conrad and Lautenburg are the only two Senators currently serving who have been elected to both seats from their state at one point or another.A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues. -Theodore Roosevelt
If they switch but the Democrats don’t…
…that bumps Rothfuss up to a top-tier attention from my point of view.I hope that the Wyoming U.S. Senate races will be as interesting as the WY-AL house race.
Finish the Deal! Help elect Democrats in districts we narrowly lost in 2006!
Democratic Future ActBlue page
Today is Maine’s Senatorial candidate Tom Allen’s birthday. (As well as my own 
) Happy Birthday Tom! Have a $20!youngbuckbear
To you and to Representative Allen!
Finish the Deal! Help elect Democrats in districts we narrowly lost in 2006!
Democratic Future ActBlue page
Specter won’t run. Everyone is pretty sure about that. He doesn’t want to say that yet, because it’s so far away from the election, but I don’t see him running for another term.However, if he happens to run, I think he would probably win. He’s not a conservative, and has a pretty good record when it comes to Pennsylvania. He’s more liked in the state right now then Ed Randell, who, if he ran for re-election now, probably wouldn’t win.
Kleeb’s new ad is really fantastic…
love the pace, tone, and the message!Wicker’s COH advantage over Musgrove concerns me a bit. I’m mulling over moving this race down a notch.
The Schaeffer implosion countdown continues…
Risch is just completely out of touch with everything
His “historically inaccurate comment of the day” puts a burr under my saddle . . . never mind, there’s too much for a comment here — I’ll post a diary.
Are Republicans ever in touch with anything?
Finish the Deal! Help elect Democrats in districts we narrowly lost in 2006!
Democratic Future ActBlue page
Anyone Agree with Kos Comment:
“And believe it or not, 2010 is an even more favorable Senate map for the Democrats.”I have a hard time believing that there is another favorable map in 2010 that can put up a good 6-8 seats that the Democrats are seriously contending AND could win. I’d love to see a list of states in 2010 that match the Like Takeover, Lean-Takeover, Toss-up, and Leans Retention that we have in 2008. In addition, where we only have 1 seat that we have to seriously defend, which at this point is sitting between Likely Retntion & Leans Retention.
Not to be a buzz kill about 2010, but to say it’s more favorable than 2008 (which I think at this point is more favorable than 2006 was in April’06) seems like a reach.
KELL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…1. McCain will probably retire. He stayed in the senate so he could run for president. When he loses again, that’ll be it. And I expect Janet Napolitiano to run. She is a term limited governor who has expressed interest in the US Senate.
2. Sam Brownback will retire, and if Kathleen Sebelius isn’t Vice president, that is another Governor who has expressed interest in the US Senate.
States we can be competitive in: Missouri, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, possibly Alaska.
That is without considering possible retirements. I don’t think it is a map more favorable than the 2008 elections, but Democrats will still be favored for a net gain.
Democrats will be defending: Nevada, Indiana, and more depending on possible retirements.
. . . Missouri and Iowa off that list. Bond and Grassley are institutions. Unless one of them retires, they have those seats for life.Pennsylvania, as noted above, will hinge entirely upon whether Specter retires or not.
New Hampshire is probably our strongest pickup in ’10. Judd Gregg is the most ideologically mismatched officeholder in all of New England, so his days are numbered. On top of that, we have an amazing Democratic bench in the Granite State– whether we run Steve Marchand, Gary Hirshberg, John Lynch, or Paul Hodes (although he should hang onto his seat in the House,) I’d say we’re bound to win that seat.
As for North Carolina . . . our recruiting has to be MUCH better next time around if we want a shot at that one.
So, I don’t think 2010 will be a banner year for us the way 2008 is shaping up to be. But it could still be a good year.
by: The Caped Composer @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM CDT
2010 has a very promising mapfor Democrats.Sure, the overall disparity of GOP seats up vs. Dem seats up isn’t as stark, but it’s still pretty good.
| Possible GOP Retirements |
Possible Dem Retirements |
| Bennett (UT) Bond (MO) Brownback (KS) Bunning (KY) Grassley (IA) McCain (AZ) Shelby (AL) Specter (PA) Voinovich (OH) |
Inouye (HI) Mikulski (MD) |
Other top GOP-incumbent targets include Burr, Coburn, Gregg, Martinez, and Murkowski.
Other top Dem-incumbent targets include, hmmmm, I don’t know. Blanche Lincoln? The AR-GOP couldn’t get a single Republican to challenge Mark Pryor. Ahnold said he wouldn’t run, which bodes well for Boxer.
It’s another pretty good map. At any rate, if we can get up to 56-57 seats in 2008, 60 in 2010 becomes VERY realistic.
Ah- I forgot about Bunning’s expected retirement, and
Chandler’s expected candidacy. :-D
Lots of races to look forward to
And lots of a great potential Dem recruits.Get:
- one of the Carnahan kids in Missouri
- Sebelius in Kansas
- Chandler in Kentucky
- Vilsack-Culver-Braley in Iowa
- Napolitano in Arizona
- soon-to-be-Congressman Berkowitz in Alaska
- lots of options in PA, NH and OH.
A lot of potential top tier races, especially if the GOP retirements stack up.
Berkowitz wouldn’t throw away the US House seat
I think our bench will be pretty slim in Alaska. I don’t think we will mount as strong of a challenge as we are this cycle.But other than that, I pretty much agree.
. . . about those retirements on our side. While Hawaii and Maryland are both reliably blue, they each have popular Republicans in the wings (Linda Lingle, Michael Steele) who could give us trouble.Also, now that I think about it, California could be a problem if the Governator decides to run against Barbara Boxer . . .
Steele? I doubt it. He’s lost once before, and there’s
no sign that MD is getting more friendly to Republicans.
A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues. -Theodore Roosevelt
. . . he lost in a strong Democratic year. If 2010 is not as strong a year for us as 2006 or this year, Steele could slither his way to victory. He has a very effective marketing strategy. I must say, I give the people of Maryland major points for being smart enough not to fall for it! I’m hoping they’ll impress me again if Steele runs in 2010.
But they were all fluff and the DSCC was about to hit him hard.I don’t know. I’m generally skeptical that he can manage a win. What’s he even up to these days?
A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues. -Theodore Roosevelt
It’s a more favorable map, but it
remains to be seen if it is a more (or as favorable) favorable environment.Remember, it’ll be the first midterm election of the new (hopefully, Democratic) president’s term. It could have a lot to do with the policies the new president has chosen to push, his popularity, etc. And traditionally, the party in the W.H. loses seats that election.
A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues. -Theodore Roosevelt
But not always. Look at 2002.
I think 2002 was an anomaly due to 9/11.
Additionally, the Southern Senators retiring killed us.But who knows… maybe President Obama will be so beloved that he can bring in even more Democrats in the Senate and House.
A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues. -Theodore Roosevelt
Offense
Kansas- if Sebelius isnt VP and gets in the race
Iowa- if Grassley retires, we have many on the bench
Arizona- regardless if McCain retires, Napolitiano could win
New Hampshire- Gregg could be vulnerable in New Hampshire
Louisiana- advertise Vitter’s scandal as much as possible, but it’d still be quite up-hill
South Dakota- if we got Herseth-Sandlin to run, what a showdown!
Alaska- doubtful we would find a candidate but if we found a good one, then this could be competitive (2008 will tell)
Florida- regardless of who, we should still shoot for this race, Florida is reddening too much for my liking
Kentucky- open most likely, go Chandler!
North Carolina- maybe we’ll get a tier 1 challenger this time
Ohio- Voinivich could retire, and if not, we have many people on our bench
Pennsylvania- if he retires, this seat is ours
Missouri- we could get a tier 1 challenger
Defense
California- only if Schwarzeneger gets in the race, if he does, I expect the entire netroots to work our asses off for Boxer, she is certainly one of our favorite Senators
Nevada- possibly, I kind of doubt it
Colorado- 1st term incumbent, although they didnt do that great getting their best challenger for the open seat, against an incumbent, I’m doubtful they will manage to get one at all
Washington- really really really really doubtful but after three elections, Murray still hasnt gotten to 60%
Wisconsin- same as Washington
So even with our seats, I dont really see any vulnerable ones unless Schwarzeneger gets into the race, and that is it. The Republicans, however, I can see us probably being seriously competitive with 5-6 of them. Actually, I can kind of see it like 2008. We have our 3-5 excellent pick-ups from great challengers and open seats, and then another bracket of races that are looking good but lean Republican, and then a couple of races we dont have much of a chance in but very well could get competitive and win.
Here are the retirements we should hope for, Arizona , Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire (Marchland’s new seat, Im saying it now), Kansas (already done), Kentucky, Ohio. We can be seriously competitive in every single one of those, and we have the momentum to win in Iowa, Penn., New Hampshire, and Ohio and have excellent recruits for the other three. And then the rest, we’ll just have to see how great of recruits we can find.
It says Thune may retire (on wiki) to run for governor, and oddly enough, I’ve read Herseth-Sandlin is also eying the gubernatorial race. that’d be interesting if both retired to run for governor, although, I bet they would both settle on either Senate or Gov., no point in losing when you can win something else.
It’s interesting how Republican wins in 2002 and 2004 have set us up for even bigger wins than what they got. They picked up every seat they could from us and it almost seems like their 55-45 majority is the greatest majority they can hope to obtain. When you look at 2008 and 2010, they have absolutely 0 targets, they simply picked them all off already in 02 and 04. While that isnt scientific or really accuarate, but even in the most Republican of times, they can only manage a maximum of around 55-57 seats.
Click here for the new senate guru blog…