Posted on 04/16/2005 12:19:02 PM PDT by el_doctor2
The 2006 mid-term elections could be pivotal for a number of reasons. First, if Democrats lose those elections, then the selection of Howard Dean will look like a very foolish decision and movement back toward the Democrat Party of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman will look like a matter of simple survival. Second, Republicans - having lost seats in the first three elections after the 1994 landslide - have gained seats in the last two general elections; winning a third straight election will make it much easier for President Bush to achieve the grand goals he has set for his presidency. Third, Senate losses will ensure that President Bush can transform the federal judiciary, which will have affect an entire generation.
What are the prospects of Republicans winning in 2006? Very good. Democrat tenacity in resisting the mantle of minority status has created the death of a thousand cuts. Redistricting and reapportionment allowed Republicans to gain House seats in the 2002 general election. If Democrats had not connived to perpetuate gerrymandering in our two largest states, then all the damage might have been done in 2002 and Democrats could have claimed victory in 2004 (i.e. gained House seats.)
Instead, the Texas redistricting after the 2002 elections meant that Republicans actually gained House seats in 2004. If the Schwazenegger Plan goes into effect, then the current 34 to 17 Democrat advantage in House seats in California will almost certainly give Republicans 5 or 6 or 7 more House seats, which will mean nationally that Republicans can, again, claim victory by virtue of increasing the number of Republicans in the House of Representatives.
Opportunities in the Senate are even more appealing. Jeffords and Daschle made the stupid mistake of making President Bush mad. As a consequence, Republicans gained an outright majority in the 2002 general elections and added 4 more seats in 2004. Harry Reid has already promised to filibuster, to scrutinize to death and to resist President Bush and he has lots of helpers in the Senate. National Democrats should be careful, because filibustering may lead directly to a filibuster proof Senate in 2006.
Incumbent Republican senators are about five years younger, on average, than Democrat incumbent senators. That does not sound like much, but it is nearly a full Senate term on average. That makes it much less likely that Republicans will have to fill open seats through retirement. This is compounded by the fact that there are significantly more Republican governors than Democrat governors and that advantage will probably increase in November 2005.
The overwhelming majority of states - and each state has exactly two senators - are conservative and Republican. Consider the number of states the two major political parties carried in the last four close presidential elections: Republicans carried 29 states in 1968 to 16 for Democrats and (Wallace carried 5 states; Republicans, in losing, carried 27 states in 1976 to 23 for Democrats; Republicans carried 29 states to 21 in 2000; and President Bush was reelected carrying 30 states, the magic sixty percent needed for cloture.
Compounding problems for Democrats is their minority party status in the Senate. Tim Johnson of South Dakota would almost certainly have lost in 2002, if South Dakotans had know Tom Daschle was not going to be Majority Leader. Daschle, a much stronger candidate, lost to the same Republican largely because he had ceased to be Majority Leader. These fundamental advantages that Republicans have in Senate races is enhanced by the particular races in 2006.
Absent retirements, virtually all Republican seats are safe; Democrats, by contrast, will be defending a lot of vulnerable territory.
Senator Dayton of Minnesota is leaving, having won with less than half the vote six year ago, and Republicans - the majority party in Minnesota now - have already lined up a group of potent contenders, while not a single Democrat has expressed interest in the race.
Two Senators named Nelson come from two conservative Republican states - Nebraska and Florida - and both barely won in 2000. Both could be very vulnerable to serious Republican challenges, another two pickups. North Dakota is a conservative Republican state with liberal Democrat senators - South Dakota and North Carolina both showed how easy those are for Republicans to win.
Senator Strabenow in Michigan barely beat Spence Abraham in 2000, and over the last four years, Abraham has served four years as Secretary of Energy, which should make him a formidable candidate, should he choose to seek his old seat back again. John Engler would also make a formidable candidate against a Democrat freshman who got less than half the vote in 2000.
Those five races alone could give Republicans the five needed for cloture, but there are other races that look very shaky for Democrats because of the sleazy conduct of Democrats in the state. If Dino Rossi is cheated out of the governorship of Washington, then a sympathy vote would make him a formidable challenger to beat Cantwell, who squeaked by with a minority vote in 2000; if Rossi becomes governor, then Republicans will be much stronger in 2006 to challenge her with someone else.
If Jon Corzine is elected governor of New Jersey, then his seat is open in 2006 and after the likely Republican candidate would be the Republican nominee against Corzine, who would have just gotten a great deal of campaign exposure and, if Forrester or Schundler, would be very run a third time statewide in five years. Add the stench of Torrecelli and McGreevey to the mix, and a Republican pickup would be likely. If Corzine loses, then, of course, he becomes more vulnerable when he runs for reelection in 2006.
Vermont presents another tricky situation for Democrats. Jim Jeffords is an independent, and if he seeks the Democrat nomination, his fig leaf of non-alignment is blown away. In a three way race, a moderate Republican could easily get forty percent of the vote and win his seat. If the Republican governor seeks the seat, Democrats would either have to make Jeffords a Democrat lose the seat, all of which would look rather grungy to Vermont voters.
Hawaii and Maryland have popular Republican governors and very old Democrat incumbents, who might not seek reelection. Could one of these Republicans win the senate seat? Sure. Robert Byrd, who is very old and sounds extremely goofy these days, comes from a state that President Bush carried easily twice. Could Republicans win this seat? Sure. Mitt Romney almost bit Ted Kennedy when Kennedy was much younger and Romney was not a popular governor. Could Romney beat Kennedy? Sure. The only “safe” Democrat is Joe Lieberman, who is also taking the same wise course which his party should take: move to the center, offer reasonable alternatives to President Bush’s domestic and foreign policy agenda, and return civility to public debate.
The decision by Dayton not to seek reelection is perhaps a good indicator that Senate Democrats realize the difficulty they face in regaining the majority and the battles brewing within their party over the next two years between the sober thinking of Lieberman and the seething rage of Dean. The result could well be, for the first time in American history, a Republican Senate which can invoke cloture.
This article is obviously very old, and it's analisys is...highly questionable in several areas.
That said, we may gain a seat or two if all goes right in '06, but pesimistically, I'm just hoping we break even.
We can't wait until 2006 because right after that election takes place 43 becomes a lame duck and starts losing his influence day by day.
yep, sort of : February 21, 2005
when the subject is about 2006, what difference does it make that this was written two months ago ? big deal
"Forrester or Schundler, would be very run a third time statewide in five years. Add the stench of Torrecelli and McGreevey to the mix, and a Republican pickup would be likely. If Corzine loses, then, of course, he becomes more vulnerable when he runs for reelection in 2006."
Schundler should get it... Forrester had his chance against Lautenberg and blew it, he ran a rather wimpy campaign that almost won were it not for rule-bending judges letting the Dems do a last-minute switcheroo.
The GOP has to worry most about Pennsylvania with a phony moderate challenging Santorum. He's one of those 'socially conservative, pro-life' Democrats who will do nothing to try and stop the judiciary from imposing a far-left social/cultural agenda on the entire nation.
If Gov Warner of Va decides to challenge Senator Allen, then it could be close. Hopefully that still-conservative state will not the same risk on a federal level that they took for the state.
Is Rossi in danger of hurting his image in Washington if he keeps fighting the governor's race? Sure, he was cheated, but is there anything he can do about it now? If he can beat Cantwell, then maybe Washington's loss will be the nation's gain.
Michigan: The GOP has failed to get their top two choices to run, and I haven't heard a peep about Engler running. It'd be great if he did though.
North Dakota: Depends on whether or not Governor Hoeven challenges Kent Conrad. That would be a great pick up, and finally give the GOP at least parity from the Senatorial delegation from the very red Dakotas.
Florida: No frontrunner yet. Has Katherine Harris made up her mind? I don't know about her with all that 2000 baggage.
Nebraska: Again, I've not heard of any of the potentially strongest challengers stepping up. Picking this seat up would be great in that Nebraska is very red, and that it brings the GOP that much closer to a filibuster-proof majority, but Nelson does at least cross over and vote the values of his state sometimes. So it wouldn't be as sweet as say, North Dakota.
New Jersey: The son of the former gov Kaine (???) who led the 9-11 commission has entered the race. You'd have to think the state natually favors a Dem though.
Maryland: Same as New Jersey with regards to natural preference, but if the state's Lt Governor runs then the GOP might have a shot.
Minnesota: I've heard good thins about Rep Kennedy. Hopefully he can win this open seat.
Wisconsin: Unfortunately former Governor Tommy Thompson is apparently not going to run.
Montana: Former Governor Racicot could have beaten Sen Baucas 6 yrs ago, but he understandably wanted to make some money for his family in the private sector. Six years later I haven't heard any rumblings of a change of heart, nor have I heard of another good challenger unless the state's most recent former governor decides to run.
New York: Giuliani could probably beat Hillary. He'd at least make it close and make the Dems spend money there (GOP too of course), but apparently he's not interested. Pataki will probably want to spare himself the embarrasment of losing to this carpetbagger.
Rhode Island: I think Chaffee has been lucky in that the top Dem contender has decided not to run, but you know this guy would pull a Jeffords if the balance ever got back down to 50-50. Still, as of now, he at least caucases with his party and as such is better than a Dem who would vote the same way as Chafee on all other matters.
Tennessee: Frist would be a shoe-in, but still the GOP nominee should have the advantage. Anyone know who the favorite is, or his likely opponent?
That is a totally ludicrous statement. A non partisan plan might cost the GOP a seat or two. This is just a GOP cheer leading article, with no substance. The "analysis" of the Senate races is an embarrassment.
Also, the "West River" part of North Dakota (which is the GOP stronghold in SD) is much smaller in geographical area and has no large city playing a role similar to what Rapid City does for SD. The population is even more heavily weighted toward the Minnesota border than is South Dakota's.
The North Dakota Republican Party has been collosally incompetent in grooming and electing candidates to the Senate. Dorgan and Conrad will be defeated when pigs fly. The Dems will run Pomeroy, who runs for the House seat virtually unchallenged every time, when Dorgan finally retires, and they will keep that seat. Count ND with two Dem Senators for a long time to come, barring an epiphany and a spine transplant on the part of the state GOP leaders.
His NON-fig leaf of non-alignment. The guy is naked.
It is Conrad Burns, the GOP guy, who is up for election. He had a very tough race last time, but I don't think any Dem of note is lining up to run against him this cycle. Still, sorry to say, Montana is trending Democrat, unless the GOP in that state gets its act together. This is a chronic story for all of these "safe red states" -- overconfidence on the part of the GOP, and an unwillingness to work hard. Thune showed the way, but there is a lot of following to be done, including in Thune's own state of SD, which still has a Dem Senator and Rep.
YEah, about halfway through that little bell went off that says "I've read this before"
These buzzards are not making it very easy to support them. I will, but I am not feeling optimistic about '06 mostly because the base is extremely turned off right now.
This is an article I was looking for. Analysis seems pretty good.
`
Yes, the author of this article, besides spelling some Senators name's wrong, is simply whistling past the grave yard. We would be good to hold our own this next Senate election.
I guess I got the Montana seats mixed up. Sorry about that. Why is Montana trending left? Is it liberals fleeing their own mess in California, only to try and recreate it in Montana? And Nevada, and Colorado, etc.
I know Clinton did very well there compared to Gore and Kerry, so hopefully history won't repeat itself for his wife.
It reads like one of those Billybob pieces.
I won't dispute your analysis about North Dakota, but Bush did win by over 20 points, and the people there voted to ban gay marriage and domestic partnerships by something like 73-27 last Nov.
But I do agree about the state GOP there when it comes to running for federal office.
What about Hoeven? Has he been a good governor? Is he a solid conservative? Would he have a good chance against Kent Conrad?
No mention of Di Feinstein in California in 2006. Is she going to run again?
I haven't seen a good reason for any of the Republicans to keep their seats yet. None for the rats, either, but in the end, the media is on the rats side. They could run someone who drowned a girl and then fled the scene, or someone who committed treason during wartime or even a known Socialist who attempted to destroy healthcare as we know it and still win with media support.
Who cares? I don't think a 99-1 margin would be enough.
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.