I want to talk about something that concerns me. Every two years a third of the Senate comes up for re-election. In 2008, the Democrats have a huge advantage because only 12 of their seats at risk, while 21 Republican seats could change hands. But things are not as simple as they appear. For example, only two GOP seats come from New England (Maine, New Hamphire). A good chunk of the GOP seats come from the confederacy (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas). Many of the other seats are no more encouraging: Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming.
The Democrats can take heart that seats are available in blue Oregon and Minnesota, and our best pick-up opportunities are probably in Colorado and New Mexico.
I am actually fairly optimistic that the Democrats can win a good amount of these Senate seats. What I am concerned about is what the Dems will do in order to win in these conservative states, and what it will mean for progressives if we are successful.
We could see a kind of Blue-Dogification of the party in the Senate.
It might seem unlikely that we will win any of the deep south or prairie/mountain seats, but there are a variety of factors that could make these seats vulnerable.
The rookies: Elizabeth Dole (NC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Lamar Alexander (TN) and John Cornyn (TX) are all serving their first terms. None of them should be considered truly safe. A recent poll showed Democratic Gov. Mike Easley beating Dole 44%-41%. Max Cleland would present a formidable challenge to Chambliss. Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredeson has 73% approval numbers. John Cornyn has only 45% approval rating.
The retirees: Wayne Allard (CO) has already announced his retirement, but there are rumors that Thad Cochran (MS), John Warner (VA), Pete Domenici (NM), Ted Stevens (AK), James Inhofe (OK), Chuck Hagel (NE), and Larry Craig (ID) might retire. A lot will depend on how many of them actually seek re-election. The more of these seats that are open and competitive, the more pressure our Democratic nominee for president will feel to cater their campaign in ways our Senate candidates can support.
The vulnerable: 2008 should be a tough year for Norm Coleman (MN), Gordon Smith (OR), John Sununu (NH) and Susan Collins (ME) to seek re-election. All of those states should vote heavily for the Democratic presidential nominee.
If we win the presidency, we see a lot of retirements, and we field strong Senate candidates, we could see a filibuster proof majority. What would that look like?
52. Colorado: Sen. Mark Udall
53. Oregon: Sen. David Wu or Sen. Earl Blumenauer
54. Minnesota: Sen. Al Franken or Sen. Mike Ciresi.
55. New Hampshire: Sen. Steve Marchand or Sen. Katrina Swett.
56. Maine: Sen. Tom Allen.
57. New Mexico: Sen. Tom Udall or Sen. Martin Chavez.
58. Virginia: Sen. Mark Warner.
59. North Carolina: Sen. Mike Easley.
60. Georgia: Sen. Max Cleland.
61. Mississippi: Sen. Mike Moore.
62. Oklahoma: Sen. Dan Boren or Sen. Brad Carson or Sen. Robert Kerr III.
63. Alaska: Sen. Mark Begich.
64. Texas: Sen. Rick Noreiga or Sen. Bill White.65. Idaho: Sen. Larry Grant (?).
66. Tennessee: Sen. Phil Bredeson or Sen. Harold Ford Jr.
67. Nebraska: Sen. Mike Fahey.
68. Wyoming: Sen. Gary Trauner (?).
69. Kansas: Sen. Jill Docking or Sen. Steve Boyda.
The first thing to notice here is that there are only two women even mentioned. That is a big problem. But it isn’t the worst round-up of potential candidates. And if we can convince George Clooney to run against Mitch McConnell (KY) and Charles Barkley to run against Jeff Sessions (AL), we might be able to approach 70 seats…heh.
We have to worry about our own seats in Massachusetts (Kerry), New Jersey (Lautenberg), Louisiana (Landrieu), Arkansas (Pryor), and South Dakota (T. Johnson). But, all in all, if the Republicans don’t get their act together we might see a much bigger Democratic Party after 2008. But will it be more progressive?
BooMan, I am from the south. I was born and raised in North Carolina and I now live in Texas. I know the south can be conservative but to call the southern states the confederacy is an insult to every political and civil rights activist that has ever lived here or faught the battle to make changes here.
I guess I should have said ‘former confederacy’,
I think the south would sound much better.
I am sorry if I fail to see the humor in this BooMan. I have worked for the past 40 years to make a difference and to change things not only in the south but through out the world. When “liberals” and “progressives” will still denigrate the southern states but always want our help changing things elsewhere, it makes you think- why bother.
In ’04, we had the DNC constantly treating the South as an ATM as well as many candidates from all the states.
The same damn thing happened again in ’06 for the most part and I am sure ’08 will be no different.
As I said I was raised in the south and live in the south again now. I have never in my life had a confederate flag, but I have had a cross burned in my yard. But some of the worst treatment I ever received from anyone as far as prejudice of any kind was in Pennsylvania- not the South.
I guess I just expect better at a “progressive” blog.
we’d never take Virginia last election season — and look what we got. 🙂 I don’t think we can count any seat out, and that’s the point of the 50-state strategy.
I wonder if the reason Sununu came out so relatively early in favor of Alberto Gonzales’ firing is that he’s already feeling some of the heat…
In Texas we are already raising funds for whoever gets the Democratic nomination against cornyn. netroots
There is also a campaign to draft a candidate going on. Richard Morrison ran one of the strongest netroots campaigns in the 2004 cycle against Tom DeLay. He kept delay down to 55% of the vote in a deep red area of Texas. He has just returned to Texas after serving in Afghanistan. draft Morrison email list
oh please oh please oh please oh please
By blue state standards any of these guys would look at best a deep and ruddy purple, but any one of them would be two or three orders of magnitude better than Inhofe.
Of the three, Brad Carson would be my choice. Carson lost badly to Coburn in 2004, but I think he got a bad rap for a loss that was all but inevitable, uphill and into the headwind that reelected the Moron In Chief.
And it didn’t help any that Oklahoma was essentially conceded without a fight by the national Democratic party.
Emphasis mine. 2006 proved the wisdom of the 50 state strategy. Webb in Virginia has already proven that a so-called conservative Democrat is an infinite improvement over a flaming Republican wingnut. Could we please have some help in Oklahoma in 2008?
One of my senators is up in 08, Dick Durbin. Heard he is a target of the gop but, the gop here in Illinois is a shadow of it’s former self and Durbin has strong support. Though he is not up for re-election in 08 but in 10, I am hoping we will have to look for a stand in for our other senator as he takes the oath of office. That is Obama.
hey boo- guess your readers got their balls twisted by your reference to the confederacy.If it weren’t so sad it would be hysterical. Once again, lets have a long winded conversation regarding PC of “confederacy”. Just lets not talk about the justice dept, the desertion figures that were another lie, walter reed (not a word all weekend), the death rate of US military- 3+ a day this month- shallI go on?
How about shutting the hell up about the confederacy and start focusing on the collapse of this country.How about that.
The first key to winning the South is not putting up a second-string of shrinking violet candidate. In 2004, South Carolinians put up Inez Tenenbaum, the Democratic Superintendent of Education, who had a good reputation in the state. Jim deMint defeated her primarily because of Bush’s margin in South Carolina. She did passably well in a state that Republicans have had a lock on since Fritz Hollings retired (which incidentally was the seat that she was running for). With Republicans on the defensive, strong progressive Democratic candidates can score points even in the South. In North Carolina, however, don’t depend on Mike Easley; he’s not running for anything.
The second key to winning the South is changing the political culture to be accepting of progressive ideas by placing them in a populist frame. That’s really what the Edwards is a rich guy with a big house and Gore uses too much electricity stories were about–trying to destroy the populist frame. Which means that little-known candidates who have strong skills and a good story can have a chance. Progressives should be trying to field these candidates for primaries now and putting together campaigns. Blue Dogs carry the field because progressives never run against them, rarely come on as full-bore progressives, and do not have effective grassroots campaigns. Larry Kissell is the exception to this. We need more candidates who will be like Larry.
The third key is changing the relationship between progressives and Southern voters. The South has a progressive past as well as a reactionary past. The South is no longer all native Southerners, and even honest-to-goodness rednecks like myself are a minority group. The transplanted suburbanites have more and more weight in Southern politics; there are probably 2 million of them in the Atlanta area alone out of a total of 4 million. Imagine the numbers for Savannah, Augusta, and Macon. Economic development in the South has turned out to mean bringing in non-native Southerner managers and technical people. African-Americans make up another 2.7 million. And then there are the transplants in almost every county seat in Georgia; everyone has be trying to get a manufacturing plant. And then there a native Southern progressives. The swing voters are the suburbanites. When racism was seen as intolerable in the 1970s, the suburbanites voted for Democrats like Carter. When racism was made “polite” by the fulfillment of the Nixon Southern strategy, suburbanites fell back on their family voting patterns, with liberal Republicans voting for Reagan just because he was a Republican. As the conservative propaganda apparatus increased in power, progressives in the boonies were isolated by Rush’s 365-day-a-year attacks and local gullibility. And “intellectual conservatism” became chic in the suburbs, helped along by the near monopoly conservatives began to have on newspaper columns and cable television. Having more progressive media available in the South (Air America, Big Eddie, Stephanie Miller, and others) starts to counterbalance this, and the talkers on these progressive media already show that they understand the complexity of politics in the South. Progressives are beginning to stand in the sunlight once again.
Thanks to the genius of the Bush administration there is no longer any “most backward” part of the country. Conservatives have a foothold in every state of the union and are pushing ignorance in every state in the union, winning victories in some otherwise “liberal” states. Voters in Southern states and voters in other states are facing the same propaganda, the same arguments, the same media tactics when Republicans are in the field.
Last, don’t look to “star-power” to win elections. “Fame” does not automatically translate into victory on the Democratic side. Bear this in mind when watching the Franken campaign in Minnesota. It’s a comforting thought to have of Charles Barkley winning against Jeff Sessions, but there are other equally talented progressive people in Alabama whose only problem is statewide name recognition. The same goes for George Clooney. There is probably a progressive somewhere in Kentucky who could beat Mitch McConnell if they ran. The impediment is in getting them to run and in ensuring that people understand the choices. Both of those things require an effective grassroots movement.
To win big in 2008 requires a large independent progressive grassroots movement in every state, who for this one election cycle lend their support to Democratic candidates and let them know that that support is not unconditional. They live under the illusion that we have no place else to go and still win. People power outdoes money power every time. Winning in the South and elsewhere requires the people power to build a political movement that moves the center of discourse towards progressive ideas. I think we are in a historic moment in which this can happen. And when it does, we cannot go back to sleep and think that our representatives will always do our will. We have to exert oversight ourselves.
Thanks for this excellent comment.
Do you have any candidates in mind? Because, if we are not going to just accept Schumer’s recruits, we need to get started right now. I see that there is an effort to do this in Texas, but it should be done for Kansas and Nebraska and Alabama and Mississippi, too.