In 2008 the Republicans have a big disadvantage in the Senate races. They have to defend 21 seats, while the Democrats only have to defend twelve. It’s not impossible that the Democrats might pick up 10 or more seats and get a filibuster proof majority. It’s easiest to see why if we look at the Republican seats that must be defended. I’ll rank them in order of their vulnerability.
1. Wayne Allard-CO. Allard is retiring and we have a strong candidate in Rep. Mark Udall. Colorado is trending Democratic and the Republicans do not have a strong candidate.
2. Pete Domenici-NM. Domenici is implicated in ProsecutorGate and he is already showing signs of age. His heir apparent, Rep. Heather Wilson, is also implicated in the growing scandal.
3. Gordon Smith-OR. Oregon is going to be a very hard place for Republicans to win in a presidential election year. Smith is already running away from the war, but it may be too late.
4. Norm Coleman-MN. Minnesota has been the most reliably Democratic state in the nation during presidential elections. Mike Ciresi and Al Franken are going to duke it out for the right to take Coleman out.
5. John Sununu-NH. New Hampshire Republicans were decimated in 2006 and the trend could continue if the Dems select a good campaigner.
6. John Warner-VA. Warner might retire, but even if he doesn’t, he will face a formidable challenge from former Gov. Mark Warner.
7. Susan Collins-ME. Collins is popular. But the GOP brand is wearing thin in New England. Rep. Tom Allen is a formidable candidate with more money than Collins. I’d rank this higher, but I don’t underestimate the resilience of Maine’s Senators.
8. Elizabeth Dole-NC. Dole was a disaster as head of the NRSC. She has done nothing of note as a Senator. North Carolina is trending Democratic. And there are several strong candidates that the Dems can field.
9. Lamar Alexander-TN. Alexander is a first-term Senator and he has not distinguished himself. Tennessee seems to be trending modestly to the Democrats. Harold Ford Jr. might run again. Gov. Phil Bredesen is immensely popular. Alexander is definitely beatable.
10. John Cornyn-TX. Cornyn is polling extremely poorly and is definitely vulnerable. A lot of data suggest that Texas is trending heavily Democratic. The right candidate can win this seat.
11. Larry Craig-ID. It looks like the hammer is about to come down on Craig’s personal sexual preferences. He appears finished as a national politician within the GOP. The question is whether Larry Grant or anyone else can grasp this opportunity to win an open seat.
12. Saxby Chambliss-GA. Georgia is one of the most reliably Republican states and it may still be trending Republican. But a rematch with Max Cleland would be compelling and could result in a victory for Cleland.
13. James Inhofe-OK. I talked to a guy from Oklahoma last night that said there are rumors that Inhofe will retire. I can’t find much supporting evidence for that, however. If Rep. Dan Boren runs against Inhofe, it would be a good race.
14. Michael Enzi-WY. Enzi is kind of a non-entity in the Senate. But Wyoming is still a very red state. Gary Trauner almost won a state-wide race for the Wyoming at-large House seat. He would presumably have at least a chance to win a state-wide Senate race. But in a presidential year, it’s hard to predict a victory here.
15. Thad Cochran-MS. Cochran is rumored to be considering retirement. If this seat becomes an open seat, it would likely match former Attorney General Mike Moore against lunatic Chip Pickering. Moore would have a decent chance.
16. Pat Roberts-KS. Roberts could retire. Right now, it looks like he will run for another term. Roberts received 83% of the vote in 2002. The Democrats have been making progress in Kansas lately, but this is a long shot.
17. Mitch McConnell-KY. McConnell is the minority leader and he is extremely well-funded. But, in a perfect storm, he could go down.
18. Ted Stevens-AK. Stevens is in his mid-80’s. If he runs, he will probably win. But, if he doesn’t…?
19. Chuck Hagel-NE. Hagel promised in 1996 not to run for a third-term. He’s also thinking of running for president. If this seat becomes an open seat, it might be competitive.
20. Pete Jeff Sessions-AL. Sessions is a lunatic, but that is not a liability in Alabama. Rep. Artur Davis is thinking of a challenge. He stands little chance.
21. Lindsey Graham-SC. If Graham is selected as a Vice-Presidential candidate it might create an open seat. That is the only way we can hope to pick up this seat.
I really only see 4 or 5 safe seats for the Republicans. The Dems have to defend Landrieu’s seat. Tim Johnson’s health is a concern. Tom Harkin might retire. The GOP thinks they might be able to take Kerry out. But, on the whole, it looks like the Dems should expect to pick up somewhere between four and ten seats.
I think we will pick up CO, NH, and ME. The other two I’m inclined to throw in there would be NM and OR, but I haven’t heard about any Democratic challengers yet. I won’t take MN for now, as I don’t think Franken can win, and I don’t know enough about Ciresi.
Would you acknowledge that the GOP is vulnerable in a lot of seats?
I think we have a decent chance of picking up CO, NM, OR, MN, NH, ME, and NC – depending on who runs on the Democratic side, of course. The only one I’d put in the definitive ‘lean Democratic’ column for the time being would be CO, while I’d list NH as a toss-up. The rest are lean Republican until it becomes clearer just who the Democrats running will be.
I don’t think Mark Warner will run for the seat in ’08 (I really think he’d rather be governor again), and I don’t think John Warner will retire either.
That being said, having 7 seats in play on the GOP side when there’s only one Democratic seat (LA) that’s really in danger, and we’re looking pretty good. And honestly, I wouldn’t lose much sleep if Landrieu lost.
You will not, but I will. And I am getting sick of out of state Democrats denigrating Landrieu, when they have no idea what she and her family has done for our state.
In a world where the US Senate has voted on so many issues that should never have come up. When Landrieu chooses to vote in a pro-neo-con manner it infuriates many of us who have little understanding of the woman herself or the political realities she faces back in Louisiana.
All we can really say is that we wouldn’t have voted that way ourselves.
And she is always singled out for reasons out of state Democrats do not understand.
One example is drilling. We in Louisiana understand we will only generate revenue if we drill. And with an oil man in the White House, we understand he will only address our social and infrastructural problems if we drill. The oil companies do have an infrastructure here, and a lot of people have employment in that industry. And our domestic oil industry can be a part of our quest for energy independence. If it generate money for my very poor state, then drill more. We help the country, and we generate money for Louisiana. And Landrieu votes to drill in Alaska, as the Alaska Senators vote for legislation to help Louisiana gain its share of revenue from offshore drilling. The Hawaiin Senators have a similar agreement with the Alaska Senators, and I do not see anyone here complaining.
Regarding the vote on habeas corpus, you will notice many Senators, including Landrieu, voted for it out of political expediency. But notice that she voted against Alito, while Byrd, Conrad and Johnson did. But no one here is complaining about Johnson.
And has anyone considered that her votes are sometimes calculated? Does anyone here know the history of her family? Does anyone know they were instrumental in implementing antisegregation laws in Louisiana? And you call her a neoconservative?
I think it is time to reevaluate.
Drilling is tough, my main objection is that the state and national government don’t collect enough royalties for the extraction of our resources (that goes for mining and logging as well) and that we don’t ensure that they companies making the profits pay for the external environmental/ health damages they cause.
I did not call her a neo-con (among the Dems that label applies only to Lieberman).
Landrieu is a good fit for your state and you quite clearly demonstrate and thus should get the same passes that Johnson gets.
Depending on candidates, Idaho, Oklahoma, Georgia, Virginia and Texas are in play.
Alaska could be in play. Even Kentucky is possible.
The only truly safe seats I see are South Carolina (if Graham runs), Kansas (if Roberts runs), Nebraska (if Hagel runs), Mississippi (if Cochran runs) and Alabama.
Alabama has Jeff Sessions. Pete is from Texas. They share more than a name in common, so it’s easy to get them confused. I’d call him more stupid than insane. Either way, it’s not going to be easy to get rid of him.
yup. corrected. thanks.
BooMan – this is what you wrote on Thu Sep 28th, 2006 at 05:28:30 PM ADT in a piece titled, Torture Is Now the Law of the Land.
And in it you wrote:
Later that same day you wrote another piece titled,
Torture is Legalized
And in it you wrote:
Man Eegee provided the complete list:
I don’t understand how you can write, “The Dems have to defend Landrieu’s seat.”
thanks for that refresher. What a depressing refresher it is.
My list is actually not an endorsement, but an analysis. If you’ve read my other pieces you’d know that I want to primary some of our Senators. As for Landrieu, I need to see someone that can win. But thank you for the reminder for why I am not a fan of hers.
To be honest, I do not know of anyone but Landrieu who can win as a Democrat in Louisiana. And I think we should keep her.
I didn’t think you considered habeas corpus and the humane treatment of people incarcerated “purity issues.”
And yes, I have read your other pieces, most recently the “Party within a Party.”
Your belief in the “system” and “structure” of the government seems so strong, I hesitate to ask, but, can you consider the possibility the government we now have is all form with a very different function than what was originally designed? And if you can consider that, where does your knowledge, analysis, and understanding take you?
Perhaps you could write about that some day.
I have a litmus test: Alito.
Landrieu voted against him, while Johnson supported him.
I’ve written that the Constitution dictates a two-party system. Some people have taken that literally, as though there is language in the Constitution that legally compels a two-party system.
What I meant is that the Constitution effectively dictates a two-party system. I’m the first to acknowledge that this circumstance was wholly unintentional and unanticipated.
So, I’d agree that the government we have is different from what was intended. But the remedy for that is to amend the constitution, and that is so unlikely that I can’t spend my time on it.
There are things that can be done on the state level. Examples:
Give out electoral votes by congressional district (as Maine and Nebraksa do), rather than state-wide. Give out delegates proportionally, as California does. Have run-offs if a candidate doesn’t reach 50%, as Louisiana does.
There are some positives of our system, although I think we would be better served by a proportional system. The effect of our two-party system is deeply conservative (in the positive sense). While it is possible to run a radical administration (as Bush has) it is very rare and it usually punished quickly. I really do believe that we will have more than 55 Democratic Senators after 2008, and perhaps more than 60. That is what happens to a radical party within the two-party system. And that is a positive aspect of what is a mainly a stultifying and unrepresentative system.
Louisiana will no longer have runoffs and open primaries for federal elections. Only state races will have open primaries and runoffs, and this begins in 2008.
I didn’t know that. How do you feel about that?
I am ambivalent. But the Democratic registration edge may have its dividends, as more people will feel their chosen candidate is in the general, whereas in the runoff many will just stay home.
Okay. Place another Vitter in the Senate, and then we will see how happy you are with the outcome. We need this seat, and we need Landrieu.
By the way, Johnson voted for Alito, while Landrieu voted against him. Where are the complaints about Johnson?
Handicapping the Senate for 2008 already, man I miss those days down at Tangiers you me and DD would try to figure out which Senate races were in play. Between the three of us we called it pretty well getting the 50th seat when Allen went and said “Maccaca” and then Mark Warner endorsed him). I look forward to doing it again.
I’ll start now, I am not that optimistic about MN if Franken is the candidate. His negatives are too high. It isn’t that hard to buy name recognition, but fixing negatives isn’t easy (c.f. Loius Murphy). Besides, I don’t think that folks will take him all that seriously.
I somehow doubt that Warner would run against Warner, a year or so ago we were hoping that he would run again Allan, but if Warner retires…
Susan Collins is probably same IMHO…
Man I got to get back to DL I have mised it too many times.
we finally won quizzo without you.
Congratulations, its always good to have them pay for your Makers.
given the highly skilled ability of the democratic party to screw up anything they touch, how is it possible that anyone would take the position of a possible fillibuster proof senate!
just look at the possible candidates being proposed.
Then, listen to them!
I know that I tend to be a “half empty” person nut for crying out loud– you are talking about a country that supports torture, racial apartheid,ethnic cleansing,……..!!!!
What a effing joke. billjpa
you would have said, and possibly did, the same thing before the 2006 elections, and we ran the table everywhere but Tennessee.
on a war chest for whatever democrat gets the nomination against cornyn.
http://www.actblue.com/page/texasnetroots?refcode=BOR#396
All funds from this campaign will be donated to who ever gets the Democratic nomination in Texas.
also quite a few are working on recruiting people to run against him.