Posted on 04/16/2005 12:19:02 PM PDT by el_doctor2
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.