Posted on 04/22/2006 5:02:11 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
National Republicans may pay a huge price for not doing more to oppose Hillary Clinton's Senate reelection bid this year.
In fact, it may cost them control of the House.
Bloomberg News reports that the former first lady, along with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer, now lead their opponents by such wide margins that their coattails could help Democrats "pick up as many as six New York congressional seats - more than one-third of the 15 they need nationally to gain a House majority."
Lee Miringoff, director of the Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, agrees that Clinton and Spitzer victories could have national consequences.
"It could turn into a Democratic year in New York, which might then have an impact on down-ballot races for Congress," he explained.
Even absent the New York factor, Republicans are already deeply worried that the House could go Democrat - a prospect that White House spokeswoman Mary Matalin described on Thursday as "catastrophic."
Add a Hillary Clinton landslide into the equation and Republican hopes grow considerably dimmer, at least if Miringoff's calculations hold true.
With so much on the line, one would expect the national GOP to be working overtime to boost Clinton's challenger, former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer. Even if he didn't win, a closer race might help preserve precious congressional seats for the GOP.
But outside of a brief critique of Mrs. Clinton "brittleness" delivered by Karl Rove earlier this year, the Bush White House is acting like they have nothing at stake in the New York race.
That's particularly odd, because if Dems take over the House, future House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has already indicated that impeachment will be at the top of his agenda.
The conservative media hasn't been much better. After Jeanine Pirro's challenge fizzled in December, most pundits have treated Mrs. Clinton's reelection as a forgone conclusion.
Even though recent polls show Spencer gaining on Clinton, he's gotten almost no exposure on talk radio and cable TV - and print interviews have been slim to none.
That's not because Spencer has nothing to say - his comments to NewsMax earlier this year show he's ready to go after Hillary hammer and tong.
Still, Republican Party activists seem content to have Mrs. Clinton's reelection devolve into a coronation.
That's fine - as long they don't complain too loudly if Democrats take back the House based on a handful of seats won in New York - effectively putting an end to the Bush presidency.
According to Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, these are the House Republicans in New York who are vulnerable in a Hillary landslide:
John Sweenney, 20th District
Sherwood Boehlert, 24th District
Randy Kuhl, 29th District
Tom Reynolds, 26th District
James Walsh, 25th District
Sue Kelly, 19th District
Emanuel quote: "Hillary Clinton and Eliot Spitzer are get-out-the-vote magnets for the Democrats."
Normally, I'd be willing to dismiss Emanuel's prediction as the latest blather by a Dem apparachik that never seems to pan out.
But this time, the math is irrefutable. There's simply no way that a big NY landslide for Hillary can be good for the above incumbents.
Perhaps some of the skeptics here would like to explain how a Hillary coronation in NY won't have consequences for the national GOP - but I just don't see it.
There's simply no excuse for Republicans/conservatives to throw in the towel in the Hillary race at this early date (which is what most are doing). And it's a fair bet that they will pay the price for continuing in that direction by forfeiting not just New York - but the entire House, the crown jewel of the GOP revolution.
Hello impeachment, goodbye George Bush.
For more info, go to: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aEz86vr2oxvc&refer=us
Only two seats? That's all right then.
Let's see, Tom DeLay gave up his House seat to save just that ONE seat for the GOP - because saving the House is so critically important.
But we can afford to piss away two seats in NY.
Thanks, I feel better now. Maybe all we NY Republicans should just vote for Hillary in '06, since it won't make a lick of difference in any other race and she's gonna win anyway.
Boehlert is retiring so his seat is now an open one. I don't know which way it will go. There's no way that Walsh will go down. I can't comment on the others.
I don't think I've ever seen a poster on this forum as consistently negative as you.
You never have anything positive to say.
Your mother was a troll, and your father smells of elderberries.
I agree. I think News Max is BS too.
Personal attacks aside, if you don't want negative opinions, make more positive posts.
New York bad news ping
By the way, Boehlert has formally announced his retirement. The GOP nominee will be Ray Meier, a atate senator. The district has a significant GOP registration edge, and Meier should have a well-funded campaign. His likely Dem opponent is a district attorney from one of the counties in the district. A serious opponent, but even so, all things considered, I'd say it's very likely Meier will hold the seat for the GOP.
If the 'Rats do capture the House, they might be able to push through impeachment if they can enforce rigid party discipline (and maybe pick up a RINO or two), but it's highly unlikely they could come close to a conviction in the Senate (that would require a lot of Republican senators to vote against Bush). The goal might be just to get a higher number of senators to vote for conviction than voted to convict Clinton...it's mainly about payback (and weakening the President).
And .. I suppose that means that "we deserve" the same.
This logic escapes me. How does punishing the GOP HELP US ..??
Do people really want the Clinton MESS back in the WH ..?? or in the halls of Congress ..??
The GOP should spend in NY, including in the city, because that's the only way to build up a base. As long as the GOP writes us off, we'll continue to write them off. You have to campaign if you want to win -- now or in the future.
Could, may, might, maybe etc. Bah.
I strongly agree that the GOP should not throw in the towel in the Hillary race.
That said, most of Hillary's support in 2000 was concentrated in a few urban areas.
It's that kind of lack of support that won't produce any coattail effect in the congressional races in 2006.
Dick Morris? Is that you? And what have you done with carl?
All the while of course, ignoring Spencer, who was just as capable of losing, but who would have torn huge bloody chunks off Hillary's ugly posterior in the process.
Need somebody with the nerve to run a tabloid campaign, to revive Vince Foster, the Rape, etc.,etc., and harshly point out Hillary's role in each sordid affair. O course, this being New York, Hillary might still win, but that would wake up the rest of the country, who are not as stupid (Sorry, meant to say ugly and loud) as downstate New Yorkers. Of course, if even those urban losers didn't turn up as expected, there is always vote fraud.
John Sweenney, 20th District With 533 of 629 precincts, or 85 percent, reporting Sweeney had 155,086 votes, or 66 percent.
Kelly had 74,610 votes, representing 33 percent, according to The Associated Press.
Sherwood Boehlert, 24th District good riddance
Tom Reynolds, 26th District 55.6% in 2004 dailykos.com
James Walsh, 25th District Walsh, James T. Combined Parties: 189,063 90.39% of the vote.
Sue Kelly, 19th District Kelly, Sue W. Combined Parties: 175,401 66.74% of the vote.
The last 2 links come from the federal election results in 2004, pdf format. If you want to listen to Rahm Emanuel, there's a bridge I want to sell you.
Bloomberg Reveals a Rifle in His Past
2 Democrats Seeking Attorney General Nomination Spar Over a 'Pact' (NY)
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
I agree. The Boelhert seat is the one to watch. I don't see Sweeney (sp) going down.
This is rat wishful thinking. The numbers will simply NOT stay that big. A high school kid knows that. She is NOT well liked and neither is spitzer. Reagan was, Bush was ( at election time) and neither had long coat tails.
BWHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Great pic!
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.