Senate 2010 update

I’m confused, is this another attempt at balance? Because frankly, you fall a little short in the equivalency department. Having to increase name recognition in Colorado or contend with Democratic primary challenges in Democratic states is hardly the same as campaigning on GOP policies, that for most people now seem to have crossed the line into crazy.

Why won’t you guys call Coleman the “SORE LOSER” that he is like they did for Gore in 2000?

Things are truly looking “up” for a change. I guess we can believe in change!!
.
Thanks for the blog, Jay!!

Eh, the Democrats aren’t in as much trouble at you make it out to be. Gillibrand and Bennet have almost two years to deal with any name recognition issues. Burris will either retire or be primaried out. And there’s no Republican in California who could pose a threat to Barbara Boxer right now.

So that leaves Reid and Dodd, who are legitimately in danger. Compare that to Vitter, Specter, Burr, Bunning, and the four open GOP seats you mentioned, and it’s looking pretty one-sided.

If you actually want to know anything about this topic, leave this post and go visit Nate.
The top 6 2010 races, and 8 of the top 10, all threaten Republican-held seats.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Yeah, ’cause we all know poll numbers and name recognition levels in April, 2009 will have so much relevance in eighteen months!
Jay, you’re a better reporter than this. Your post is analogous to firing a rifle at where you expect a target to be next year, i.e., pointless.

Gillibrand and Bennet have almost two years to deal with any name recognition issues.
_
Gillibrand has a much different problem than Bennet — Bennet is not expected to face a primary challenger, while Gillibrand will be facing at least one (McCarthy). And, if as expected, McCarthy starts to gain traction, there is a strong likelihood that at least one better known democrat would enter the primary against Gillibrand (McCarthy is running because Gillibrand is a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA, and McCarthy’s husband was murdered by a madman with a gun, and McCarthy may well be a stalking horse who will drop out if a more prominent democrat who favors gun control announces.)
_
As for Bennet, his chances are based on what kind of GOP opponent he gets — if its a wingnut, his odds go way up.

If Menendez really wants to defend Dodd and Reid’s seats, he could explain to them that the easiest way to get re-elected is to not suck horribly at your job. Currently, Dodd and Reid both fail that test by an exceptionally large margin.

“Dodd’s aides point to Obama’s dominant 61% victory in Connecticut in an election that saw the defeat of the state’s (and New England’s) lone House Republican, Chris Shays. “Connecticut is trending blue. Even if Dodd only got 70% of Obama’s voters, he’d still easily win,” says one adviser. “His potential opponent Rob Simmons couldn’t even hold Connecticut’s Second District — how is he going to win statewide?”"
-
CT voters may not think Dodd is a prize, but it doesn’t mean they want to contribute to a return to Bush’s Happy Time. Many people who say “they won’t vote for Dodd” won’t vote at all, but Connecticut isn’t the kind of place where you can step up on the rainbarrel with a pitchfork and make points talking about “commies”. Republicans won’t get traction. Leiberman survives only by the pork he brings to the table. Same with any of them.

JNS is just concern trolling for the GOP as usual. What she doesn’t mention is that of the Democrats who are “in trouble” they are “in trouble” with primary challenges not general challenges. Chris Dodd is the only one in real trouble and even if he loses its highly doubtful that a Republican will have a chance in CT. But hey as long as it gets the wingnuts hopes up why not point out reality? I mean the GOP is doing SO well in polling right now after all.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/economic-crisis-ensures-that-bush-remains-albatross-for-gop/

Don’t know about this, JNS.
.
Americans are starting to run against GOP philosphy and ideology. Witness the override of the Vermont governor’s veto of a same sex marriage bill:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/07/vermont-house-senate-overrid-veto-on-same-sex-marriage/?eref=politicalflipper
.
Here is the NY20 by Nate Silver at 538:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/what-ny-20-tie-means.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ny-20-absentee-ballot-distribution.html
.
Palin, as of 1/13, doesn’t fly well, either, but don’t have later numbers.
.
I think JNS is just barking up the wrong tree. Let’s see how those governors (including Palin) do in the battle with their respective state legislatures over overriding their refusal to accept stimulus money.
.
A clue is Palin did a climbdown already, and others may be sensing a flirtation with irrelevance.
.
And Palin herself isn’t helping her own cause, I don’t think, with this:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/07/palin-pushes-for-missile-defense-funds/

While true that Dems don’t look to sweep where they might have a few months ago, that’s not really a surprise, and it’s still a lifetime before the elections. Fun to think about, just the same.
.
OT, but the Vermont legislature just voted to over ride Gov. Douglas’ veto of the marriage bill. That was actually a big surprise to most of us, since in the original vote the house only had 95 votes and needed 100 to over ride the veto, which they got. So Vermont becomes the first state to approve same sex marriage by legislative vote.

kathy:
.
Pending too is Obama’s performance with respect to the economy, which is starting to look increasingly postitive.
.
Factor that in, provided we get a flattening out and/or beginning of a recovery before then, and the GOP might become even more irrelevent.

Also, let’s see how toxic Palin is outside the zone of her dittohead synchophants:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/07/now-featured-in-virginia-governors-race-sarah-palin/

As a point to increasing confidence in the economy I mentioned, see this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30083725/

53-3 not to mention the benefit of Obama campaigning for dem candidates, and the use of his email list. And I agree with you that if the economy turns up he’s going to look very good.

Would losing Reid actually be bad for the Democrats?

Senate 2008 update-
With Votes Counted, Franken Now Leads By 312 Votes
.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/with-votes-counted-franken-now-leads-by-312-votes.php

Got to agree with several points the other swamplanders make. Yes there may be real concerns for some of these pols in the respective primaries, but JNS, do you really think that will necessarily give the GOP a chance to win in those States, let alone defend against Dems in several others?

In fact, considering some of the folks you mentioned, like Gillibrand, I’m no fan. She was an olive-branch to the upstate conservatives who just had to scream and shout about their needs. Fact is, if she doesn’t swing more the other way, she will have serious problems. But that does not suggest that NYers would ever lose their senses and vote in a GOP senator. Hell, Bloomberg knows that ship won’t sale and he will do anything to avoid being branded solely GOP.

As a point to increasing confidence in the economy I mentioned, see this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30083725/
_
might I suggest that you look at the actual data — like here (http://tinyurl.com/cwlzvn) and here (http://tinyurl.com/cdekth)
_
because while more people may say things are “getting better” in the economy, when asked questions like “are you concerned that someone in your household will lose their job” the numbers are up considerably…and are flat when asked about actual confidence in the economy as a whole.

That there are two corrections to the facts in the space of ONE sentence says a lot about JNS’s reporting skills.
.
Like her buddy Michael Scherer she is just concern trolling for the GOP. A more accurate appraisal of the situation is that the Democrats are still on offense. The approval ratings for the Congressional Democrats as a whole are higher than the Republicans. And Obama’s “honeymoon” is continuing, despite what conservative wishcasters like David Broder and George Will are writing.
.
What IS true is that all politics are local. And the good citizens of Nevada and Connecticut have a right to be dissatisfied with the jobs that Reid and Dodd, respectively, are doing. Reid especially needs to face a stiff primary challenge from a Democrat who will stand up for himself. Dodd has badly misplayed his hand, from moving his family to Iowa to totally screwing up the banking committee.
.
Not coincidentally, both of these gentlemen are in trouble because they are not standing up for the progressive ideals and expectations that Democrats are expecting from their elected representatives. Reid never met a Republican idea that he wouldn’t cave in to. Dodd is a toady of the big banks. They adopted bad ideas. Those bad ideas blew up on them. People notice those kinds of things.
.
Too bad Evan Bayh isn’t running this cycle. Whomever his primary challenger happens to be is going to raise millions overnight via the Internet. I’d give at least $100 to whomever his primary challenger happened to be.
.
As for the Republicans, the fact remains that the demographics of the country are trending away from them. They are a regional party with strength in places like Wasilla, AK, Opelika, AL, and Wenatchee, WA. The Democrats have locked up NYC, LA, and Chicago and are building strength in places like Houston, Las Vegas, Atlanta, and Anchorage.
.
Last time I checked elections were decided by the number of votes cast, not by the land mass lived on by a voter. Maybe the Republicans should push to have votes allocated by area. That way their (potentially) continued dominance of the middle part of the country and the South can count for something.

“…because while more people may say things are “getting better” in the economy, when asked questions like “are you concerned that someone in your household will lose their job” the numbers are up considerably…and are flat when asked about actual confidence in the economy as a whole.”
.
And if you want data that’s even, um, harder, take a look at this. (Warning: Not Safe for Confidence).

Pending too is Obama’s performance with respect to the economy, which is starting to look increasingly postitive.
.
hahahahahaha what
.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/transcript1.html
.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: There are two reasons. One, they’re much closer to the bankers. These are people from the banking industry. And they have a lot more sympathy. In fact, they’re outright hostile to autoworkers, as you can see. They want to bash all of their contracts. But when they get to banking, they say, ‘contracts, sacred.’ But the other element of your question is we don’t want to change the bankers, because if we do, if we put honest people in, who didn’t cause the problem, their first job would be to find the scope of the problem. And that would destroy the cover up.

I’ve never given money to a Republican candidate in my entire life, but I fully intend to donate to Harry Reid’s GOP challenger in the general election if no serious primary challenger emerges.
.
Harry Reid is doing more to set back the progressive agenda than anything Boehner, Cantor, Limbaugh or any of the other half-wits who control the Republican Party could dream of.

piper 1: I’m a diehard democrat. I’ll support anybody that runs against him. The guy is useless. Mybe more than useless. He’ll stand up to fellow democrats but get all weak-kneed just at the thought of offending the republicans. We’re better off without him. A net gain of two senarte seats and he becomes nothing more than a burden.

piper1
.
I hate Harry Reid more than most but what you just said is silly talk.

I need spell check. At the very least I should preview for more than 5 seconds.

sgw: You’ll have to count me as a silly talker too. I truly despise Reid. The only way I want to see him win is if we can’t hit 60 without him. He may be the worst Senate majority leader in recent times. Say 50-75 years.

sacredh
.
Here is the problem, whether we hit 60 or not will never be the issue. Here is why, for us to EVER hit 60 Democratic senators we will have to continue to have ConservaDems get elected. Thats just a fact of life. There are only so many states and only 100 possible Senators so even if/when we get to 60 we will still have some unreliable voters on our side like Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh et al. Now I desperately want Harry Reid to lose in a primary so he won’t be majority leader but what I don’t want is to lose that seat. Harry Reid for all his weaksauce is an obvious vote for President Obama’s agenda at all times. If we lose that seat to a Republican then that is another vote against President Obama’s agenda. So if Reid doesn’t lose in the primary you will almost literally be cutting off your nose to spite your face if you support a Republican in the general. If it is the House then that is one thing but we can’t really afford that kind of thinking when it comes to the Senate. Otherwise you end up with Evan Bayh as majority leader eventually.

“I truly despise Reid.
.
Me too but SG has a point: political choices are always the choice of the lesser of evils. If Reid gets a progressive Democrat in a primary challenge, vote for her. Otherwise, supporting “anybody that runs against him”, is supporting a Nevada Republican. Believe me, that’s not the choice of the lesser of evils.

I concede the point. This reminds me of welcoming Lieberman back though. It’s like taking really terrible tasting medicine that doesn’t get you high. You just have to choke it down and accept it.

Did Republicans need 60 Senate votes to pass their agenda the last 8 years?
.
If there was a way to get Reid out of the Majority Leader chair without him being defeated, I’d support that. But I don’t see any way for that to happen. We need a strong majority leader to aggressivley push the Obama agenda, not a weak-kneed jellyfish (no offense to the many fine jellyfish out there) who only knows how to stand AGAINST his own party and insists on making it as easy as possible to block the Obama agenda.
.
A majority leader willing to use the powers at his disposal would make the 60 vote threshold less necessary. And if Harry Reid ever did have a 60 vote block, I’m pretty sure he’d still figure out some excuse for not enacting that agenda.

I think we’re all agreed that even vacuum cleaners don’t suck as much as Reid. It’s just so frustrating to have the White House, Senate and House and get saddled with such as ineffective majority leader. I’d give spob and rusty’s right arms to have someone like LBJ in there.

This may seem off topic, but Blue Texan asks an important question: At What Point Did Republicans Become the Party of Bed-Wetting Hysterics?.
.
It’s a good question, dontchathink?

piper1
.
The GOP is truly a monolith. People who get elected as Republicans especially nowadays are not in any way shape or form liberal or progressive when it comes to party line votes. They don’t have to be because most of them got elected because they were Republicans and not because of any particular stance on any issues. Democrats however that get elected in red or purple states usually have to at least try to frame themselves as somewhat conservative. Now sometimes this isn’t true as in Bayh’s case and the Democrat just ends up being an ass hole. But that is the problem inherent in running the Senate when Dems are in control. You get these Southern Dems who want to be seen as mirror images of Republicans so they can get reelected over and over. So basically comparing Dems in the majority and Rethugs in the majority is comparing apples and oranges. I do believe thought that Dick Durbin might make a run at majority leader if not enough of President Obama’s agenda gets passed and Harry Reid just barely wins a primary challenge. But in the end it boils down to do we want a Majority Leader who sucks ass or do we want a Rethug that will vote against every major liberal and progressive issue? I will hold my nose and choose the former if Reid survives the primary.

I’m glad you brought up Durbin, sg, as I was pondering who I would like to see replace Reid and Durbin or Schumer were the only plausible improvements I could come up with (the person who most clearly mirrors my views would be Russ Feingold, but that ain’t gonna happen).
.
Though I understand the logic, I think it was a mistake to pick a majority leader for the Dems from a red or barely purple state like Nevada. The Dems need someone who is not afraid of their own shadow and will work towards the agenda that the majority of Democratic voters support.
.
I certainly understand where you are coming from and don’t really know The Answer, per se, but from my vantage point I would rather have a tough and hard-charging advocate for progressive causes and 57 seats in the Senate versus a laughably flaccid and feable majority leader and 58 seats.
.
I stand by my earlier statement- Harry Reid has been a more effective brake on Obama’s agenda than Boehner, Cantor and Limbaugh could ever hope to be.

“A majority leader willing to use the powers at his disposal would make the 60 vote threshold less necessary. And if Harry Reid ever did have a 60 vote block, I’m pretty sure he’d still figure out some excuse for not enacting that agenda.”
.
If it were a progressive agenda, you’d probably be right. Reid hates the Dirty F*cking Hippies as much as we despise him – no coincidence I think. But we are engaging in that ever popular Washington parlor game: blame the Democrat. It’s not Reid who’s engaging in Republican scorched-earth obstructionism. He also knows that he can’t count on the corporate press to tell the public the real story of their unprecedented use of the threat of filibuster to obstruct the governing of the nation. That’s also a story which doesn’t serve the interests of corporate boardrooms everywhere, so it too is effectively embargoed by corporate-owned news organizations. Go figure.

piper1
.
Thats fine but understand that with 57 Dems we wouldn’t have the stimulus package this year. And while it wasn’t what most of us wanted it was for damn sure a lot better than the republican alternatives.

[...] and Arlen Specter looked especially vulnerable. But things change very fast in politics. As the Time’s blog (hardly a cheering section for Republicans) explains: But then came the Roland Burris/Blago [...]

You typed “…five Democrat incumbents…” instead of “Democratic incumbernts.”
You should really leave the slurs to David Vitter, John Boehner and the RNC.

“Thats fine but understand that with 57 Dems we wouldn’t have the stimulus package this year.”
.
So you say.
.
And Shepherd- I should have made clearer that you are absolutely correct: Reid does not believe in the agenda. One more reason to get him out in favor of one who does. I don’t think this is making perfect the enemy of the good; Reid is doing the GOP’s dirty work for them with his spineless fecklessness.