Edgar (most popular "R" governor in IL) didn't take on Durbin (or Moseley-Braun for that matter) this year & Racicot (most popular "R" governor in MT) didn't take on Baucus. In every case, the incumbant 'RAT would probably be losing (or, at best, in a dead heat) if they had to face the most popular Republican in the state.
It's just ain't easy to get multi-term governors to throw their hat back in the political ring when they want to take a breather after 10+ years holding statewide office. The best the GOP got this year was when they talked John Thune into running a cut-throat against Tim Johnson INSTEAD of an "easy" run for Governor. I think that's really the only example we have of recruiting the most popular elected Republican to run against an incumbant 'RAT Senator.
Anyway, we got to work with what we got. Badboyavich is actually ahead of Jim Ryan by double digits here (for Gov.) and Durbin is far ahead of Durkin (although Durbin IS polling below 50% of the vote when the 3rd party guys aren't even on the radar). I believe the numbers are simular in Michigan with Granholm and Levin. Get behind the nominees and work hard to change the tide. If we do not watch our backs, it will be a Dem sweep in the great lakes and a couple other midwestern and western states.
And personally, this is not Michigan's year to elect a Republican to the U.S. Senate. The opportunity was to defeat Stabenow in 2000 and it didn't happen (okay, Abraham has mostly himself to blame for that). But there should be no reason to lose any more ground to the Dems. Keep the offices that are already Republican and Levin can be ousted in 2008 when he'll be considered too old for the job.
BTW, the reporter writing this article is named Durbin. Is that eerie or what? ;-)
Well, Edgar still might have had problems a la Bob Kustra in '96 (Conservatives unhappy with yet another establishment type annointment) and been perhaps prone to a challenge from the right. Edgar, like Kustra, also may be perceived to not have the fire in the belly. Frankly, they probably should've done this: had Jim Ryan run for the Senate, Bob Edgar try to reclaim the Governor's office, and given George Ryan a one-way ticket to Havana.
"& Racicot (most popular "R" governor in MT) didn't take on Baucus."
The guy that's running now, Taylor, he's good, but he's at a disadvantage in the $$ department. Of course, a lot of folks didn't think Conrad Burns could knock off John Melcher in '88 (the odd thing about MT is that in about 80 years, it has only had 1 GOP Senator prior to Burns, a one-termer who won in the '46 landslide, who then lost to a fella named Mike Mansfield despite Ike's '52 landslide). The Dems are trying desperately to hold the seat while actively trashing Governor Martz (who looks very vulnerable for '04) also in the hopes of recapturing the legislature this year (and like IL, the MT Dems unfairly had control of redistricting despite the fact the GOP was the legislative majority).
"In every case, the incumbant 'RAT would probably be losing (or, at best, in a dead heat) if they had to face the most popular Republican in the state."
Probably so.
"It's just ain't easy to get multi-term governors to throw their hat back in the political ring when they want to take a breather after 10+ years holding statewide office."
Yeah, although it's too bad we can't ingrain in them a sense that they need to continue to serve the party. Maybe just simply put to them, "Do you want to, after 8-12 years of service and hard work, to just let it all go to the Democrats ?" The advantage so many Democrats have is that they seem to have more of a passion for running for and winning office, and too many Republicans don't.
"The best the GOP got this year was when they talked John Thune into running a cut-throat against Tim Johnson INSTEAD of an "easy" run for Governor."
Perhaps the one example (along with Tim Hutchinson in AR in '96 when Mike Huckabee had to remain as Governor) where a pol put party ahead of himself. We need more John Thunes.
"I think that's really the only example we have of recruiting the most popular elected Republican to run against an incumbant 'RAT Senator."
Actually, things are looking up in LA where the GOP seems to have turned to Suzanne Haik Terrell, the state Elections Commissioner (an elected position) to take on Mary Landrieu since John Cooksey's campaign sunk like a rock (that's if Landrieu gets less than 50% in the all-party primary). At least one prominent Black pol in the state has threatened to endorse Terrell (Landrieu is very poorly regarded amongst Black pols). We made out pretty well in MN with Norm Coleman and MO with Jim Talent, too.
"Anyway, we got to work with what we got. Badboyavich is actually ahead of Jim Ryan by double digits here (for Gov.) and Durbin is far ahead of Durkin (although Durbin IS polling below 50% of the vote when the 3rd party guys aren't even on the radar)."
The GOP in IL has the added problem of time holding the Gov's office. Although I disagree with who they want in, controlling an office for 26 years straight is a powerful argument for change. I think Blag is going to be a disaster, and couple it with Lisa Madigan as AG with her daddy running not only the House, but probably also pulling the strings in the State Senate, too, and that's a recipe for corruption if there ever was one. The Chicago Mafia in total control of Illinois -- bone chilling.
"I believe the numbers are simular in Michigan with Granholm and Levin."
Yup.
"Get behind the nominees and work hard to change the tide. If we do not watch our backs, it will be a Dem sweep in the great lakes and a couple other midwestern and western states."
Even being as optimistic as possible, I still don't see how we're not going to lose a bit of what we have. Hopefully we can hold down the losses and pull off some surprises elsewhere (as in LA & NJ Senate)
"And personally, this is not Michigan's year to elect a Republican to the U.S. Senate. The opportunity was to defeat Stabenow in 2000 and it didn't happen (okay, Abraham has mostly himself to blame for that)."
A fella I know, a lib Dem, who went to school with Abraham was puzzled how the guy ever won in the first place (not from an ideological standpoint, but from a campaign perspective) -- he just was not a real "campaigner", probably the kind of guy who could've gotten elected in the days when legislatures elected Senators, but not a go-out-and-gladhand politician. Of course, would we have done much better with Ronna Romney ?
"But there should be no reason to lose any more ground to the Dems. Keep the offices that are already Republican and Levin can be ousted in 2008 when he'll be considered too old for the job."
I'm not even sure they'll be able to get him out on the age issue then. He'll be 74, and still 2 years younger than Dingell is this year after prevailing in an ugly contest. It's interesting to note now that Levin is now the longest-serving Senator in MI history at 23 1/2 years, beating in January this year, the legendary record-holder, Arthur Vandenberg.
"BTW, the reporter writing this article is named Durbin. Is that eerie or what? ;-)"
Heh.