The coming GOP supermajority in the US Senate; how Bush will completely reshape the Supreme Court

[ken5050]

I don't believe that Miller will switch NOW. It's not principaled. He'd feel, unlike Jeffords, that he'd not kept the faith with the folks back home. And there's also the strong possibility that Sen Chaffe would switch to the Dems, thus negating Miller's move.

Now let's assume that the GOP picks up three seats this fall. A reasonable supposition. That gives them 52 seats, and majority, and it also makes sure that Chaffee isn't going anywhere. Now here's where it could get very interesting. Take a look at the seats coming up in 2004:

Dems: Lincoln, Boxer, Dodd, Graham, Miller, Inouye, Bayh, Breaux, Mikulski, Reid, Schumer, Edwards, Dorgan, Wyden, Hollings, Daschle, Leahy, Murray, Feingold....total 19

GOP: Shelby, Murkowski, McCain, Campbell, Crapo, Fitzgerald, Grassley, Brownback, Bunning, Bond, Gregg, Voinovich, Nichols, Spector, Bennett..total 15

That's right, the Dems have 19 seats to defend, the GOP only 14..and of those 14 seats, only one looks iffy, Fitzgerald in Illinois. But remember, there's a good likehood that in 2004 President Bush will be running for reelection, riding on top of the polls, with victories over Iraq and other successes underr his belt, a scenario that's likely to bode well for the GOP candidates. Yes, I know, anything can happen, and 2+ years is a long time, but I'm looking for trends, here, so stay with me.

There are some possibilities of retirements on the GOP side, and I'll include McCain, Bennett, and Spector on that list, but except possibly for PA, all seats should stay GOP.

So, after the 2002 election, the GOP has 52 seats in the Senate, and the Dems aren't going to gain any in 2004. Now, among those coming up on the Dem side in 2004 are Miller and Breaux, among the two most conservative members, now looking at the prospect of at least four years, near the end of their careers, in the minority. Not a very appetizing prospect, especially since the Dem minority will be more idelogically skewed to the hard left. Just think about all those upcoming Supreme Court nominations..So, Breaux and Miller cross the aisle. Now the GOP count is 55. Starting next year, a solid working majority for the GOP in the Senate, and full support for President Bush's agenda, and judicial appointments..

Now, among the NOW 17 Dem senators up for re-election in 2004, there are a lot of targets of opportunity. Consider:

Blanche Lincoln....she's weak, hasn't done much, and Arkansas is trending GOP more and more.

Barbara Boxer....well, California's in the midst of an interesting gubernatorial race now, who knows, and Boxer may be pushing the ideological envelope. At the worst, she'll have to work hard if the GOP finds a good candidate.

Dodd....he's mentioned retiring, and if he's looking at minority status, he'd retire. Gov Rowland is a strong state wide candidate.

Reid...he's weak, he just squeaked by the last time. I'd have said he'd be a prime target, expect the recent decision to site the nuclear waste disposal in Nevada might give him an issue. Still, he's on the endangered list.

Edwards....if he runs for the WH, he could face a problem back home. Folks might not like him runnin for two seats at the same time, and the positions he'd have to take on the national scene could make it very tough for him at the state level. A lot depends on how streong a candidate the GOP fields

Dorgan....With Bush at the top of the GOP ticket, and a strong candidate, Byron might have a tough time...

Weyden....could be had

Hollings....looking at 4 years+ back in the minority, might he choose to retire? If so, the seat should go to the GOP

Daschle....Oh please, would that it be so......but if Johnson loses this fall, and Tom's back in the minority, and looking at no chance to retake the Senate in 2004, might he choose to retire, make some money as a lobbyist? And the seat should go GOP then.

Murray....It's time for her to go...she should be an easy target for the GOP.

Feingold....Wisconsin is less liberal, the possibility of picking off a seat exists...

OK, that's 11 Dem seats that could be considered in play. 5 would give the GOP a supermajority..and again, President Bush may well be running in 2004 with the best possible circumstances. And of those 11 Dem seats, a pick-up of 5 gives the GOP a supermajority, the ability to invoke cloture.

And among a whole lots of goodies, that means maybe most important the ability to complete reshape the Supreme Court for the next 20 years....

So, there's a lot riding on the 2002 Senate races....if it goes as we hope, then it might, just might be the start of retaking, and reshaping, this country.

Oh yeah, while I'm at it....I think that anyone who's been following events in the senate realises that Trent Lott has got to go. And Sen Nickles, while a good man, does not possess the verbal and media skills necessary to be an effective public spokesman. It's time for Bill Frist, as soon as possible..

Author's note: I'm just an amateur political strategist, like many on FR, and am not attempting to imply that I have incisive knowledge about the indivual senate races. I'll leave that to those of you in the various states..you're a lot closer to each of those races, with a better sense of what could happen. Especially as to who the GOP candidates might be in thevarious races. But I"m looking to discern a possibility, a trend, no...I'll say it, a probability, and it's in that context that I offer these thoughts and welcome your comments, and flames..

[ken5050]

Heads up, FYI..bum lists if you please

[ken5050]

Heads up

[Zonitics]

From your keyboard to G*d's ears.

[teletech]

I hope this unfolds exactly as you predict.

[Seeking the truth]

It certainly is worth praying for! Pretty good analysis also.

[PhiKapMom]

Glad to bump this! Thanks for posting!

[pabianice]

Whoa! Where'd the 52 seat majority in 2002 come from?

[fogarty]

A "supermajority" of the GOP we've borne witness to in the past decade would spell the end of the Republic as we know it.

Here's what it would mean:

- More money for wasteful government depts (education, justice, IRS)
- More violations of Constitutional rights by para-military police organizations
- More illegal immigrants than ever before
- And finally, more deafening silence over the more than 40 million unborn babies killed (over 1 million a year) in the abortion centers across the country.

A revival of the modern-day GOP would be a calamity we would probably not recover from. What is needed is a throwback to a Constitutional GOP which died a longtime ago.

[Timeout]

Sounds good to me. You didn't mention your good neighbor in Chappaqua...if the dems put him out campaigning for them, it could be even better than your script.

[summer]

Interesting analysis! :)

[pabianice]

More rain on your parade. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648879/posts

"Republicans Cave Again"

Why would anyone vote for them in 2002 or 2004? They have no demonstrable principles.

[Captainpaintball]

You're dreaming. As much as it pains me to say it, we are in the heyday of the Republican party. The Democrats in drag, toothless RINOs, and our own fearless "compassionately confused" leader have made it that way, and there aren't enough of us to do anything about it--except delay the inevitable, perhaps.

[centurion316]

A great American once told me "hope is not a method". Good food for thought here, but too optimistic, I fear. Our opponents will employ every trick, cross every moral boundary, bend or break every rule and law -- and they will NEVER quit. Never underestimate them.

[rohry]

Wow, you must have stayed up late doing your homework! Don't I get credit for being your research assistant?

I think this very optimistic and I hope it happens but I am concerned about the economy. This quite possibly could be a double dip recession. I don't think that the economy is healthy...

It's time for Bill Frist, as soon as possible...

He's not my Senator, but he's the one I'd pick for Majority Leader (as I've posted several times on other threads)!

[Dog Gone]

I think this is terribly optimistic, but I like to think positively.

The trouble is that we lack strong candidates in key states. Take Lousiana for example.

Mary Landrieu won by a few votes, probably illegal, and is an intellectual lightweight in a state that voted heavily for Bush last time.

Right now, she's coasting to re-election. There's no excuse for that.

We are defending what would have been safe seats in Texas and Tennessee. We're defending Strom's and Jesse's seats this year without them in it.

I want to believe your scenario, but I would be thrilled if we can pick up even one or two seats this year.

What that mean for 2004 is anybody's guess. You're assuming a quick and popular victory in Iraq. I don't think that's a cakewalk. But if it is, your scenario is on the outer range of possibilities. It's what we should hope for.

[LS]

Your current analysis is as lame as a three-legged dog. But your history is even worse. What "Constitutional" Republican Party are you talking about?

If it was the party of Lincoln, that party instituted an income tax, a tariff, gave RRs subsidies, and established public colleges. I love Lincoln, for a lot of reasons, but these ain't them. There is no such thing as the "Constitutional Republian" party you claim to remember.

The two most "constitutional" presidents of the last 100 years are Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge.

Now, as to the main thread, I wish it were true, but I think it hopelessly optimistic to think that incumbents will lose more than 5% of the races---that is the historical trend.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Interesting.

I think Feingold and McLame will probably stay put, but the others...mmmm.interesting stuff.

I'd love it.

We'd have the RINO problem, of course, but with a strong President we can overcome it.

How nice it would be to see Patty Leahy and Judas the Jackass Jeffords sitting at the end of committee hearings ranting and raving to an empty room. :)

[timestax]

Yeah BUT----DemoncRATS have friends in high (or is it low) places!!