Posted on 11/27/2006 6:54:06 AM PST by Princip. Conservative
Rep. Deborah Pryce is keeping her seat in Ohio 15th Congressional District. The Franklin County Board of Elections said she won by 1,054 votes over challenger Mary Jo Kilroy.
The narrow margin of victory means that there will be a recount.
(Excerpt) Read more at 10tv.com ...
You're right about the Senate, but I disagree about the House. I can't see how the Dems avoid losing at least ten seats -- TX-22, PA-10, KS-4, AZ-5, OH-15, FL-16, MN-1, CA-11, WI-8, and NH-1.
They'll probably also lose in NY-20 (maybe even NY-18) and members will win if they make comebacks in KY-3, PA-4, PA-8 and perhaps CT-2. Sodrel could perhaps make it a race in IN-9, and Bass could make a comeback in NH-2.
From there, the Rs have to take those two GA districts, hit Spratt hard in the presidential year in SC-5, and give Hooley a run for her money in OR-5. Then you have to hope for some scandals and retirements -- but don't bet on too many of the latter, because Dems are less likely to retire now that they have the majority.
It's strange to me that the Northern Suburbs are Liberal. In Texas and in most other Southern States, that's where the Conservatives are.
"Hayworth always has been a champion for Native American tribes, a relationship that began when 20 percent of his congressional district was Indian country. (Redistricting left his district concentrated in the urban East Valley.) Hayworth took flak because many of his tribal donors were affiliated with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but he is still well regarded among Indian nations."
Here is the redistricting that took place in 2002.. Compare the demographics of Hayworth's old district, the 6th, with his new one, the 5th. Compared to his old district, the total minority population for Hayworth's new district declined from 33.4% in 1992 to 23.2% in 2002. The Hispanic component also declined from 14.2% to 13.3%. Hayworth lost some of his biggest support from the Indian vote, which was moved from his district.
What is happening in AZ is similar to what is happening Northern VA, where I also live. The more prosperous it becomes, the more it is trending Dem. The Valley in AZ has attracted lots of folks from CA who bring many of their values with them. Something similar is happening in Colorado and Montana.
The bottom line is that there was redistricting with the addition of two more seats in AZ. The demographics of the Phoenix area are also changing. Hayworth lost because of a combination of reasons. He did not lose because of his tough immigration policies. It also worth noting that Hayworth lost by 8,000 votes with Mitchell receiving 50.4% to Hayworth's 46.4% and Severin, the Libertarian receiving 3.1% of the vote.
In 2004, Hayworth received 159,455 votes (vs 93,815 in 2006) against the Dem, Rogers, with 102,363 (vs. Mitchell's 101,838). The Libertarian candidate in 2004 received 6,189 votes versus 6,357 in 2006. Thus, Rep turnout was a major factor. Perhaps, Rep voters were complacent believing that Hayworth would win even if they did not turn out. The Dem turnout was up slightly in this non-Presidential year.
In 2002, Hayworth defeated his Dem opponent 86,191 to 52,192. Comparing 2002 to 2006, Hayworth increased his vote total by about 10%, but his Dem opponent almost doubled the previous candidate's. The Dems were able to energize their voters in 2006.
The guy who couldn't manage to get elected to GOP leadership? Why should Russert spend time on him? The GOP made its decision on Pence. Russert can't be blamed for accepting it.
Is this the same Pence who shoved a gazillion earmarks for his district into the final appropriations bill before piously voting against it?
"and Bass could make a comeback in NH-2."
BASS is running for governor here. I am running against Paul Hodes. Andrew M Santom (R) True Common Man Conservative. Already started the commitee and contacted the NH GOP. Remember Santom '08!!
TX-22, PA-10 are the only 2 slam dunks in your list. i do think the gop has a decent shot at the rest of them, but they still have an uphill climb. they need to not only win those but defend the dozen or so others they won by only a few percentage points.
'08 is a presidential year too so who is at the top of the ticket will also have an affect on turnout.
How do you know that? That simply isn't true. Hayworth was leading by double digits in late December. I really bellieve that Hayworth lost because he did not do a good enough job of getting Rep voters to turn out.
corrextion late September
The Senate is only in control of the Dems by one. Of course, if we have a lot more GOP running in 2008 than Dems, it would be hard to win it back.
Unlikely that the GOP will stop falling on their collective swords. They walked away from US! They won't stroll back into the fold. More likely they'll just scream that it hasn't been working (globalism and liberalism) because....get ready....the right folks haven't been in charge!
However, it's far more likely that the GOP will regain control based on the past track record of the Dems when they gain power. Already investigations are being promised. Subpoenas are being readied. The inevitable result will be more divisiveness and partisan acrimony.
Our silver lining: Since the rats never learn, they'll get arrogant and start pushing the same agenda that got them kicked out last time: Universal Health Care, Gun Control and Gay Marriage (including gays in the military).
Oh please.. Hayworths defeat is a embarrasment for Conservatives especially the Border issue only types. No amount of spin can undo the embarrasing defeat for strong border issue conservatives. Hayworth was known mainly for his stand on immigration issues and his defeat simply proves that one issue type politicians dont have a election winning strategy.
The senate looks tough for GOP in 08. John Warners seat in Virginia will most likely go dem if Mark Warner decides to run. The best GOP chances appears to be in Louisiana where with a Strong candidate Landrieu can be beaten, or South Dakota where again Johnson can be defeated with a strong republican candidate.
"I've heard that in Ohio the maps are drawn by executive officeholders, not the legislature. If the Democrats are reelected in 2010, they will draw Democrat seats in Columbus, Cincinnati, and possibly Dayton, and we will lose three or four seats to redistricting as Ohio will also lose 1 or 2 seats to the south and west."
Please don't take this personal, but I'm glad you're not correct here (and I'm sure you will be, too).
I looked up Ohio redistricting and this is what I found at http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/oh.htm :
"The legislature is in charge of congressional districting, while the Apportionment Board handles state legislative districting. The board consists of five members; the governor, the secretary of state, the state auditor, one appointee of the speaker and majority leader of the senate jointly, and one appointee chosen jointly by the minority leaders in each house. The governor only has veto power over the congressional district plan."
In other words, Ohio congressional redistricting is in the hands of the Ohio legislature and they also have an influence over the legislative redistricting, too, through their appointees. The good news is that, while the Dems will hold the governorship and the secretary of state, the GOP won the state auditor position and would currently hold 2 of the other guys. So, it looks as if it would be deadlocked 3-3 for state legislative redistricting.
Anyone else have comments on this?
Pray that we can stage a comeback. I can't stand rangel and John Dingle-berry!
Pray that we can stage a comeback. I can't stand rangel and John Dingle-berry!
Oh please...stop with your simplistic explanation crap. Read my post #63. Hayworth wasn't a single issue candidate. There were other factors that played into this defeat, one of the most important being voter turnout.
How come Tancredo won? Sensenbrenner? Or the vast majority of Reps who voted for the House enforcement only bill? DeWine lost and he voted for the Senate bill. Most elections are decided on local issues and usually not on one issue.
The Republicans are going to be in big trouble in the Midwest (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri are all trending blue--if not already solid blue. Illinois is already a hopeless case, and Indiana is getting less red by the day, again, because of manufacturing loss).
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.