Skip to comments.
GOP Eyes 60-Vote Senate Majority
NewsMax ^
| 11/30/2004
| Joseph Taranto
Posted on 11/30/2004 10:18:30 AM PST by Hugenot
Now that President Bush has been re-elected to a second term, Republicans are already looking ahead to the midterm Senate races in 2006 and dreaming of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.
Some say it's a dream that could come true.
Five of the 17 Senate Democrats whose terms expire in 2006 are from states that voted for Bush. If they stay in the Republican column two years from now, the GOP could reach that magic 60 number.
For that to happen, however, Republicans have to shore up states where they may be vulnerable. Of the 33 Senate seats that will be elected in two years, 15 belong to Republicans. Three of these Republican senators are in states that went to Kerry on Election Day.
The Bush states with Democratic senators include Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, and West Virginia. The blue states with sitting Republicans are Maine, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
Could the GOP pull it off?
If President Bush continues to succeed in the war on terror, democracy begins to take hold in Iraq and the economy keeps improving at home, it's possible.
And if Democrats fail to learn from their mistakes - and continue to turn off the electorate with their soft-on-national-security policies and overwrought anti-Bush rhetoric - that can only improve the chances for GOP success.
TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Connecticut; US: Florida; US: Maine; US: Nebraska; US: North Dakota; US: West Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2006; bush; democrats; electionussenate; filibusters; republicanmajority; republicans; senate; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-113 last
To: Hugenot
**the GOP could reach that magic 60 number. **
You can bet the dims will be out with lots of money to defeat the GOP in those elctions!
101
posted on
11/30/2004 1:53:34 PM PST
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Roccus
**Hopefuly there'll be a target on HRC's back.**
Bull's eye for Giuliani!
102
posted on
11/30/2004 1:54:32 PM PST
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: JCEccles
Please note post # 5. This is so predictable. If the GOP does not deliver they will lose seats. Case closed.
103
posted on
11/30/2004 2:06:49 PM PST
by
Mark in the Old South
(Note to GOP "Deliver or perish" Re: Specter I guess the GOP "chooses" to perish)
To: Last Dakotan
I hadn't heard that. I thought whatever advertising he was doing was either for his telecommunications network or PSA's. (FReepers are ALWAYS ahead of the news, it seems!) :)
What do you think of my other idea, about appointing Conrad or Dorgan to the Ag post?
104
posted on
11/30/2004 2:14:27 PM PST
by
alwaysconservative
(Ever notice that leftists don't have a sense of humor?)
To: alwaysconservative
Rumor has it that this is Dorgan's last term and that he will retire. I don't think it is necessary to appoint Conrad to anything. With the right candidate and funding he can be taken on directly.
To: Last Dakotan
Rumor has it that this is Dorgan's last term and that he will retire. From your lips to God's ears! I agree that Conrad is more beatable.
106
posted on
11/30/2004 4:13:19 PM PST
by
alwaysconservative
(Ever notice that leftists don't have a sense of humor?)
To: Hanging Chad
PING!
Hi, pal.
This thread should interest you.
It's your favorite topic.
Time to repost all that good data you have.
107
posted on
11/30/2004 4:16:38 PM PST
by
DefCon
To: Roccus
Hopefuly there'll be a target on HRC's back..
Hillary is very popular in New York, no matter what others on this site will tell you. She will trounce either Pataki or Peter King in 2006 and you can take that to the bank.
108
posted on
11/30/2004 4:17:53 PM PST
by
Clemenza
(Gabba Gabba Hey!)
To: dvwjr
I think this chart has couple errors on it. The GOP had 53 or 54 Senators in the 104th, not 52 or 53 as chart says. In 103rd it was 57 or 56, not only 57 Dems.
And did the GOP really pickup 9 Senate seats in the 1898 midterms elections with an incumbent GOP Prez?
109
posted on
11/30/2004 6:42:47 PM PST
by
crasher
To: crasher
Yes, I did a quick a dirty transcription of the US Senate data listed as the source and had not yet put in all the in-session changes for all political parties. The US Senate data does not have in-session changes before the WWII Congresses and will need further research.
The GOP did make the gains in the 1898 mid-terms due to the seat changes from the six new States (North Dakota, South Dakota Montana, Washinton, Idaho, Wyoming) 'Class A' Senators who had stood for re-election after only two years in 1892. Add to that the re-election of the 'Class A' Senators in the newly admitted State of Utah in 1896 and you get enough elections happening, along with the Republicans picking up two 'Silver Republican' third-party seats and you get the unusual nine-seat pick-up...
Here is the corrected table with the updates for the changes in the composition of the Senate from WWII onwards...
US Senate
Historical division by party
1789 to Present
Congress |
Years_Term |
Senate Majority Party |
Allotted Number of Senators |
Administration |
Opposition |
Federalist |
Democratic- Republican |
Whig |
Democrat |
Republican |
Others |
Vacant |
1st |
1789-1791 |
Administration |
26 |
18 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2nd |
1791-1793 |
Administration |
26/28/30 |
16 |
9/11/13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
3rd |
1793-1795 |
Administration |
30 |
16/16/17 |
13/14/13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/0/0 |
4th |
1795-1797 |
Federalist |
30/32 |
|
|
21 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
5th |
1797-1799 |
Federalist |
32 |
|
|
22 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
6th |
1799-1801 |
Federalist |
32 |
|
|
22 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
7th |
1801-1803 |
Dem-Reps |
32/34 |
|
|
15 |
17 |
|
|
|
|
0/2 |
8th |
1803-1805 |
Dem-Reps |
34 |
|
|
9 |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
9th |
1805-1807 |
Dem-Reps |
34 |
|
|
7 |
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
10th |
1807-1809 |
Dem-Reps |
34 |
|
|
6 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
11th |
1809-1811 |
Dem-Reps |
34 |
|
|
7 |
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
12th |
1811-1813 |
Dem-Reps |
34/36 |
|
|
6 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
13th |
1814-1815 |
Dem-Reps |
36 |
|
|
8 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
14th |
1815-1817 |
Dem-Reps |
36/38 |
|
|
12 |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
15th |
1817-1819 |
Dem-Reps |
38/40/42 |
|
|
12 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
16th |
1819-1821 |
Dem-Reps |
42/44/46 |
|
|
9 |
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
17th |
1821-1823 |
Dem-Reps |
48 |
|
|
4 |
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
18th |
1823-1825 |
Dem-Reps |
48 |
|
|
17 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
19th |
1825-1827 |
Dem-Reps |
48 |
|
|
22 |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
20th |
1827-1829 |
Dem-Reps |
48 |
|
|
21 |
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
21st |
1829-1831 |
Democrat |
48 |
|
|
|
|
23 |
25 |
|
|
|
22nd |
1831-1833 |
Democrat |
48 |
|
|
|
|
22 |
24 |
|
|
|
23rd |
1834-1835 |
Whigs |
48 |
|
|
|
|
26 |
20 |
|
2 |
|
24th |
1835-1837 |
Democrat |
48/50/52 |
|
|
|
|
24 |
26 |
|
2 |
|
25th |
1837-1839 |
Democrat |
52 |
|
|
|
|
17 |
35 |
|
|
|
26th |
1839-1841 |
Democrat |
52 |
|
|
|
|
22 |
30 |
|
|
|
27th |
1841-1843 |
Whigs |
52 |
|
|
|
|
29 |
22 |
|
|
1 |
28th |
1843-1845 |
Whigs |
52 |
|
|
|
|
29 |
23 |
|
|
|
29th |
1845-1847 |
Democrat |
52/54/56/58 |
|
|
|
|
22 |
34 |
|
|
2 |
30th |
1847-1849 |
Democrat |
58/60 |
|
|
|
|
21 |
38 |
|
1 |
|
31st |
1849-1851 |
Democrat |
60/62 |
|
|
|
|
25 |
35 |
|
2 |
|
32nd |
1851-1853 |
Democrat |
62 |
|
|
|
|
23 |
36 |
|
3 |
|
33rd |
1853-1855 |
Democrat |
62 |
|
|
|
|
22 |
38 |
|
2 |
|
34th |
1855-1857 |
Democrat |
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
15 |
5 |
|
35th |
1857-1859 |
Democrat |
62/64 |
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
20 |
5 |
|
36th |
1859-1861 |
Democrat |
64/66/68 |
|
|
|
|
|
38 |
26 |
2 |
|
37th |
1861-1863 |
Republican |
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
31 |
3 |
1 |
38th |
1863-1865 |
Republican |
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
33 |
9 |
|
39th |
1865-1867 |
Republican |
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
39 |
4 |
|
40th |
1867-1869 |
Republican |
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
57 |
|
2 |
41st |
1869-1871 |
Republican |
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
62 |
|
|
42nd |
1871-1873 |
Republican |
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
56 |
1 |
|
43rd |
1873-1875 |
Republican |
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
47 |
7 |
1 |
44th |
1875-1877 |
Republican |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
46 |
1 |
1 |
45th |
1877-1879 |
Republican |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
40 |
1 |
|
46th |
1879-1881 |
Republican |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
42 |
1 |
|
47th |
1881-1883 |
Republican |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
37 |
2 |
|
48th |
1883-1885 |
Republican |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
38 |
2 |
|
49th |
1885-1887 |
Republican |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
42 |
|
|
50th |
1887-1889 |
Republican |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
39 |
|
|
51st |
1889-1891 |
Republican |
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
51 |
|
|
52nd |
1891-1893 |
Republican |
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
47 |
2 |
|
53rd |
1893-1895 |
Republican |
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
44 |
4 |
|
54th |
1895-1897 |
Republican |
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
44 |
6 |
|
55th |
1897-1899 |
Republican |
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
44 |
12 |
|
56th |
1899-1901 |
Republican |
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
53 |
10 |
1 |
57th |
1901-1903 |
Republican |
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
56 |
2 |
|
58th |
1903-1905 |
Republican |
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
57 |
|
|
59th |
1905-1907 |
Republican |
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
58 |
|
|
60th |
1907-1909 |
Republican |
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
61 |
|
|
61st |
1909-1911 |
Republican |
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
60 |
|
|
62nd |
1911-1913 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
52 |
|
|
63rd |
1913-1915 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
51 |
|
1 |
64th |
1915-1917 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
40 |
|
|
65th |
1917-1919 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
42 |
|
|
66th |
1919-1921 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
47 |
49 |
|
|
67th |
1921-1923 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
59 |
|
|
68th |
1923-1925 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
53 |
1 |
|
69th |
1925-1927 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
54 |
1 |
|
70th |
1927-1929 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
48 |
1 |
1 |
71st |
1929-1931 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
56 |
1 |
|
72nd |
1931-1933 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
47 |
48 |
1 |
|
73rd |
1933-1935 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
36 |
1 |
|
74th |
1935-1937 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
25 |
2 |
|
75th |
1937-1939 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
76 |
16 |
3 |
|
76th |
1939-1941 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
23 |
3 |
|
77th |
1941-1943 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
28 |
2 |
|
78th |
1943-1945 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
38 |
1 |
|
79th |
1945-1947 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
38 |
1 |
|
80th |
1947-1949 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
45 |
|
|
81st |
1949-1951 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
42 |
|
|
82nd |
1951-1953 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
47 |
|
|
83rd |
1953-1955 |
Republican |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
47 |
48 |
1 |
|
84th |
1955-1957 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
47/47/48/49 |
47/47/47/47 |
2/1/0/0 |
0/1/0/0 |
85th |
1957-1959 |
Democrat |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
47 |
|
|
86th |
1959-1961 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
35 |
|
|
87th |
1961-1963 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
36 |
|
|
88th |
1963-1965 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
34 |
|
|
89th |
1965-1967 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
32 |
|
|
90th |
1967-1969 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
36 |
|
|
91st |
1969-1971 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
43 |
|
|
92nd |
1971-1973 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
44 |
2 |
|
93rd |
1973-1975 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
42 |
2 |
|
94th |
1975-1977 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
38 |
2 |
|
95th |
1977-1979 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
61 |
38 |
1 |
|
96th |
1979-1981 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
58 |
41 |
1 |
|
97th |
1981-1983 |
Republican |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
53 |
1 |
|
98th |
1983-1985 |
Republican |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
54 |
|
|
99th |
1985-1987 |
Republican |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
47 |
53 |
|
|
100th |
1987-1989 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
45 |
|
|
101st |
1989-1991 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
45 |
|
|
102nd |
1991-1993 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
44 |
|
|
103rd |
1993-1995 |
Democrat |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
57/56 |
43/44 |
|
|
104th |
1995-1997 |
Republican |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
48/47/46/46/47 |
52/53/54/53/53 |
|
0/0/0/1/0 |
105th |
1997-1999 |
Republican |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
55 |
|
|
106th |
1999-2001 |
Republican |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
45/45/45/46 |
55/54/55/54 |
|
0/1/0/0 |
107th |
2001-2003 |
Rep/Dem |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
50/50/49/48/48 |
50/49/49/50/50 |
0/1/1/1/2 |
0/0/1/1/0 |
108th |
2003-2005 |
Republican |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
51 |
1 |
|
109th |
2005-2007 |
Republican |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
55 |
1 |
|
dvwjr
110
posted on
12/01/2004 12:04:16 AM PST
by
dvwjr
To: KwasiOwusu
These Bush tax cuts were extensive as they were solid. Nothing "token" about them at all,like you keep claiming.Back when the cuts were making news, I recall there were a few notable conservative writers making the point that the cuts were small. A quick search turned up these:
"The tax cut is just 1.8 percent of $30 trillion in cumulative federal taxes from 2003 to 2013, according to Congressional Budget Office data."
"The tax cut is a tiny 0.35 percent of a cumulative U.S. gross domestic product of $155 trillion from 2003 to 2013."
"Reagan's tax cut in 1981 was 10 times larger."
111
posted on
12/01/2004 7:52:49 AM PST
by
newgeezer
(...until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.)
To: newgeezer
"Back when the cuts were making news, I recall there were a few notable conservative writers making the point that the cuts were small. A quick search turned up these: "
Rubbish.
I can come up with even more solidly conservative , and better economists who think the Bush tax cuts were as solid as they come and have made a major difference to the growth of the Us economy.
Just on the reduction of the Divined tax alone, we had
this from the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS :
"One of Americas largest publicly owned corporations recently announced the biggest stock dividend payment in history: some $37 billion. Tens of thousands of workers and retirees will benefit from Microsofts decision to distribute some of its profits to shareholders, as well as millions of 401(k) participants whose mutual funds invest in high-tech stocks. In the past year, other companies have paid dividends for the first time, including Target, Bank of America and Proctor & Gamble. Previously, these companies reinvested profits themselves, and shareholders only realized a gain when they sold their stocks.
These announcements occurred because the Job Growth and Taxpayer Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 cut the maximum individual income tax rate that stockholders pay on dividends to 15 percent
The new rates have made a difference since becoming law in May 2003.
The tax cut not only reduced the burden on individuals, it also reduced the cost of capital to corporations. The economic benefits of the lower dividend tax rates will increase over time, and they will be even greater if Congress makes the rate cuts permanent and greater still, if the taxation of dividends is completely eliminated."
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba483/
"....the Bush administrations lower tax rates on dividends have encouraged companies to raise money by selling more shares rather than by borrowing. According to the American Shareholders Association, in the first 12 months of lower rates (May 2003 to May 2004): There were 298 announcements of initial or increased dividend payments by firms in Standard & Poors index of 500 largest corporations, compared with just 192 in the preceding year. Net individual dividend income from Standard & Poors 500 firms increased 50 percent in 2003, from $32.7 billion to $49.1 billion, and is projected to total $55.5 billion in 2004. [See the figure.] .................... Over the long run, according to recent estimates from the National Bureau of Economic Research: The level of dividends paid out by corporations will rise 24 percent, amounting to an $86 billion increase from 2002 levels.
The reduction of taxes on future dividends will increase the value of the stock market by $690 billion, a 6 percent increase over the markets value as of March 2003. There are also long-term effects. The study calculates that it will take three years after the tax change for just one-fourth of the long-run effects on dividend payout s to occur. NBER researchers also suggest that cutting dividend taxes reduces the tax burden on investors who purchase new equity issues in expectation of future dividend payout. "
All these massive effects on the economy from just the cut in divident taxes alone. One must also not forget that President Bush initially proposed the total elimination of Dividend taxes altogether, but Congress amended the bill for a big cut in Dividend taxes instead. Even so, the effects have been awesome!
I repeat, there is nothing "token" about the Bush tax cuts. They were deep, profound and fundamental, and the salutary effects on the Us economy will be felt for a very long time to come.
To: KwasiOwusu
I didn't say the tax cuts were ineffective. I said and continue to say they're tiny, miniscule, and PUNY, which makes the liberal's rantings all the more laughable.
Now, if we could get our wonderful, "conservative" Republicans to reduce the size of the Federal government, that would be a step in the right direction. Even halting its growth would be a pleasant surprise.
113
posted on
12/01/2004 1:52:10 PM PST
by
newgeezer
(...until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-113 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson