2010 Senate Elections: 8 Democratic Incumbents Approval Below 50%

various polls ^ | 7/2/09 | Dangus

[dangus]

Blanche Lincoln, AR 45% Public Policy Polling, March Barbara Boxer, CA 48% Survey USA, June 12-14 Michael Bennet, CO 34% Public Policy Polling, April 24-26 (trails Rep. Beauprez) Christopher Dodd, CO 37% Quinnipiac, April (trails several) Roland Burris, IL 17% Public Policy Polling, April 24-26 (likely to lose primary) Harry Reid, NV 34% Mason-Dixon, June 18-19 Kirsten Gillenbrand, NY 24% Marist (disapproval rating also below 50%) Byron Dorgan, ND (only poll in this red state was commissioned by DailyKOS)

Also in possible danger but above 50% approval: Daniel Inouye, HI leads Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, but he'll be 86, and may not campaign well Arlen Specter, PA (could face bruising primary)

No cherry-picking! All polls were most recent major-media polls, not just the most favorable.

[Irish Eyes]

Carly Fiorina could be a really good candidate against Boxer, particularly if she keeps it all about fiscal issues. Her name is even similar to California.

With the current financial climate in California Carly Fiorina might have a good chance against Boxer. This looks like it might be our best chance in years to make inroads in California.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

California is an abortion state and has been for 40 years. Those are the real facts.

Maybe it has been, but illegal aliens oppose abortion. With their votes, after amnesty is passed, abortion will go away!

[Antoninus]

Sadly we are a broken party. Our organization is shot.

So being a defeatist a full year and a half out is your strategy, eh?

[Antoninus]

and had a message about opposing abortion in large font as its central theme in a state that is overwhelmingly pro-abortion.

The state is not "overwhelmingly pro-abortion". Get a grip. And besides, the number of people on the pro-abort side who are single issue voters is not significant.

The number of pro-life voters who will vote for a pro-abort under no circumstances, on the contrary, is much higher. This is why democrats in the past two election cycles have made a conscious effort to appear "pro-life" even when they have 100% approval ratings from NARAL.

Pro-abort is a net-loss position for a Democrat. And it's the kiss of death for a Republican.

[Kansas58]

Again, look at the “single issue” voters.
When you talk about voting for a CANDIDATE in a representative Republic, it is a given that you will probably not agree, 100%, with what that candidate stands for.
Pro choicers have always been far more willing to vote for a prolifer, than prolifers have been to vote for a pro choicer.

Kansas has far more liberal abortion laws than California, that is why women used to come here, to Wichita, to get abortions.

Also, Ronald Reagan wrote a prolife book,

He was very prolife by the time he ran for President.

[counterpunch]

Ronald Reagan was always pro-life.
But California politics demands otherwise.
Reagan simply enacted the will of the people, like a good elected politician does in a representative democracy.

Reagan didn’t run on an anti-abortion platform.
Neither for Governor nor President.
He ran on other issues. He didn’t make abortion a central theme to his campaign the way so many politically tone deaf Republicans have done in California in recent elections.

[NTHockey]

>>You forgot Deleware.<<

Who cares? Either we get a traitorous RINO in castle, or the first-born son of the Duke will inherit daddy’s seat.

Interesting question: Has there ever been a time in our history where a blood relative of the President or VP served in the House or Senate while the other relative was in office? Only one I can think of would be John Adams (Senate) and John Quincy Adams (President).

[dangus]

>> How many vulnerable R’s are running in ‘10? <<

None; they are all retiring. There’s five open seats.

>> I’m not following your math, but it’s late. 51 in the Senate is a majority. 60, that the D’s just achieved, is needed to avoid cloture <<

That’s because I didn’t show any of my math. The GOP needs to pick up 11 seats; they have 40. They also have to defend 16 seats.

[ThePanFromJapan]

The 16 they have to defend are in states where they have the best shot of doing so.

They need 11 for a majority in the Senate. I can state right now that they’re not gonna get it. But they’re gonna get enough so that the 2 RINOS (Snowe and Collins) cannot do damage.

The House and Governorships is where the bacon is gonna be made. I’ll give an example: Oregon’s unemployment rate is approaching 13%. The Dems have had the governor’s seat for the past 25 years, and the state house has been a supermajority in both houses for this session, with a Senate supermajority since I believe 2004. The Dems have taxed their way into a hole.

It’s just a matter of the OR GOP getting their butt in order and actually full-on supporting a conservative for the nominee instead of the RINO idiots like Kevin Mannix and Ron Saxton (the previous two nominees).

[reformedliberal]

I fully support your rant, especially the last paragraph.

[RockinRight]

I predict the GOP wins the House by a 5 seat margin, and brings the Senate to 50D 48R 2I

[RockinRight]

I think we can knock off Dodd, Bennet, and Reid. Dorgan, Specter, and Boxer are winnable but difficult.

[RockinRight]

I say we just barely capture the House.

[RockinRight]

Paulician??? Define, please...

[RockinRight]

If my math is right, that gets the GOP the House, correct?

[RockinRight]

Part of it is in the marketing. One can be solidly conservative, yet still appeal to those voters who shun the hardcore social values.

For examples see Reagan.

[RockinRight]

Oregon’s a funny state - although liberal, Republicans can and do win the state from time to time, usually after Democrats have pissed them off enough.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I personally think that anyone would be better than Obama. Even McCain would have been better. And those who insist on their candidate, who threaten not to vote, who insult and act like thugs to people who support someone else do nothing but cause us to lose.

THANK YOU! I, too, get sick and tired of these holier-than-thou type idiots on here who think that if you don't support their particular candidate (usually Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter), than you're not a "real" conservative. Real conservatives get behind the most conservative candidate who stands a chance of winning, and go for the gold. They don't whine and complain and undermine and screech like harpies because their guy didn't win.

Usually, these are the same type of people who just want to complain about the Republican Party instead of actually doing anything to retake the GOP for conservatism. Worthless losers, in my estimation. No, they're worse than worthless because in the process of exercising their worthlessness, they are also undermining the morale of the conservative movement as a whole.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

In Ohio, Rob Portman is currently way ahead of Lee Fisher and that nitwit attorney general, so we have a great chance to hold onto this seat.

Also, Kasich is in the teens ahead of Strickland who is running for re-election to the governor’s mansion. Strickland’s “it’s all my predecessor’s fault” (Square Bob Sponge tax Taft) routine has worn thin with the voters here in Ohio. That does not portend well to Obama’s same routine.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Paulician??? Define, please...

The Paulicians were a medieval Baptistic group that Roman Catholics like to claim were either "gnostics" or "adoptionists" so as to try to get around the fact that there were Christian groups existing outside of Rome all through the current era. It's an inside joke from another thread meant to needle dangus just a wee bit.