GOP Sees Path to Control of Senate

Wall Street Journal ^ | JULY 18, 2010, 9:20 P.M. ET | NAFTALI BENDAVID

[Pan_Yan]

WASHINGTON—Democrats for the first time are acknowledging that Republicans could retake the Senate this November if everything falls into place for the GOP, less than two years after Democrats held a daunting 60-seat majority.

Leaders of both parties have believed for months that Republicans could win the House, where every lawmaker faces re-election. But a change of party control in the Senate, where only a third of the members are running and Republicans must capture 10 seats, seemed out of the question.

That's no longer the case. The emergence of competitive Republican candidates in Wisconsin, Washington and California—Democratic-leaning states where polls now show tight races—bring the number of seats that Republicans could seize from the Democrats to 11.

Democrats now control the Senate 59-41—after the death of Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was replaced by Republican Sen. Scott Brown—including two independents who usually vote with them. That means Republicans need 10 seats to take a 51-49 advantage.

Republicans would have to win virtually every competitive race to retake the Senate, without losing any seats of their own—clearly an uphill climb. The trouble for Democrats is that many trends are against them. Surveys show that Republicans are more motivated than Democrats to go to the polls, and that voters are looking for new leadership in Congress.

"I think there is definitely a chance" of losing the Senate, said Democratic strategist Gary Nordlinger, a Washington-based media consultant. "I wouldn't call it a probability, but there is certainly a chance."

"Republicans still have to [win] all the competitive races in order to get to a majority, but at least there are enough seats on the table to pull it off," said Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report.

[Non-Sequitur]

Wouldn’t surprise me at all if he did.

[reformedliberal]

While we find ourselves watching less and less TV, isn’t it at least interesting that it is the far left the keeps urging their members to boycott all TV?

Yes, TV supports a progressive agenda and provides $ to that agenda, but it is at least one way to stay in touch with the propaganda.

We had this discussion here. DH loves Jimmy Buffet. He made an argument similar to Pan_Yan’s. And honestly, just because a few of us refuse to support some entertainers, they are still going to be wealthy and powerful and so are their outlets. even if you rent videos or subscribe to Netflix or watch on the computer, the studios and the stars receive something. During the Great Depression, movies became the escape of choice.

I do sort of see the point against professional sports and stadiums, but you cannot boycott away something that so many people find interesting. Bread and circuses are likely here to stay. Even expensive concerts, while experiencing financial woes, continue.

Better, perhaps, to just exercise some discretion in those last 4 minutes of some History or Discovery program when the agenda is rammed home. We usually get up and do something else during those last 4-5 minutes, since it is rarely a wrap-up and very often, the point. We also mute all commercials. Yes, we are giving a few dollars/month to progressive outlets, but they are all experiencing financial problems, anyway.

That said, we may be forced to cancel DirecTV as the economy worsens. If that happens to enough viewers, perhaps we will be able to get offers for ala cart programming.

[Frantzie]

You do not understand how cable works. Every month the 5 networks get a percentage of your cable bill. The 5 networks own over 90% of the cable channels. You may never watch CNN but you give them money every month. Ditto the rest.

Obama and the left control America through TV and the media. It is used with billionaires money like Soros to destroy any Republican or conservative who stands up to them. Keep watching and paying.

TV has almost become 90% propaganda. NFL games as well as the NBA, NCAA, MBL, ESPN et all - 100% pro-Obama.

People will gladly accept serfdom as long as they can hold the clicker. Fox? 7% or more owned by the Saudis. If you do not know where the Saudis fit in you are not paying attention.

Time is just about up. He controls most of the economy now, TV and the Internet. He can turn off the Internet any time he wants.

[Seattle Conservative]

Wyden will probably hold on to his seat in Oregon, but saw this earlier and thought it was interesting (though it's a small sampling and in the margin of error):

The polls just get better and better for Jim Huffman. As incumbent US Senatorial do-little Ron Wyden blames Bush for the current economy Huffman is solidifying a steady as he goes base of support.

In the words of Independent Pollster Bob Moore (the below is from email letter not website as it is unavailable online):

Our recent survey of Oregon voters reveals that Senator Ron Wyden is vulnerable to a challenge from Republican candidate Jim Huffman. Here are key findings from the survey.

− A GOP candidate for U.S. Senator is favored by 37%, while a Democrat is favored by 36%, with the remaining 28% undecided. This is despite an 11-point Democrat edge over Republicans in voter registration.

− Just 44% believe Ron Wyden deserves reelection today, while 45% prefer a new person and 11% are unsure if they favor Wyden's reelection.

- After hearing a series of statements about the candidates’ backgrounds and views, Huffman moves into a 47-38% lead over Wyden. The reelection of a long-term Democrat incumbent in Oregon is not a foregone conclusion – Oregon voters mirror national voter attitudes on a variety of key issues.

The survey was conducted July 9-10, 2010 among a representative sample of 500 likely voters in Oregon. The potential sampling error is plus or minus 4% at the 95% confidence level.

More here: http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2010/07/jim-huffman-pulling-ahead-for-us-senate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/NWRepublican+(NW+Republican)

[Pan_Yan]

Let’s look at who voted for what (only showing those in the Senate at the time):

Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003?

CORNYN - Yea
ENSIGN - Yea
ENZI - Yea
INHOFE - Yea

No Child Left Behind 2001?

ENSIGN- Yea
ENZI - Yea
INHOFE - Nay

TARP?

BARRASSO - Nay
BURR - Yea
COBURN - Yea
CORNYN - Yea
DeMINT - Nay
ENSIGN - Yea
ENZI - Nay
INHOFE - Nay
THUNE - Yea
VITTER - Nay

Getting a perfect score for 2009 from ACU doesn’t mean you’re conservative. I’m not trying to belittle individual senators. I am just pointing out the problem with “conservative ratings”. The system is broken.

[Theodore R.]

Sadly you left our Senator Cornyn off the list.

[Pan_Yan]

I put an etc on the end of my list.

[Theodore R.]

I wouldn’t put any hope for NH on that list.