Skip to comments.The real story of the (likely) Republican Senate disaster
Posted on 10/30/2012 5:35:48 AM PDT by Sir NapsalotEdited on 10/30/2012 5:45:59 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Itís increasingly clear that whatever happens to the White House and the House of Representatives, the 2010 cycle is going to be a monumental disaster for Republicans in the Senate. The most likely outcome is probably a dead-even 47 seats for the GOP, but given that the Democrats were defending 23 seats while Republicans only had 10 to defend, Democrats would be thrilled with breaking even ó and thereís even a fairly good chance that Democrats could increase their majority a bit. ....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Your (fake) concern is duly noted.
What difference does it make if a Lugar has an R behind his name if he acts like a D?
What the hell his he talkin about? I have noticed, though, that the MSM has been trying to depress the senate vote in the last couple of days.
The analysis doesn’t seem wrong to me. We have very conservative congressmen who have served in safe House districts, who get nominated to run for the Senate, and their views turn out to be too far to the right of public opinion statewide to allow them to get elected.
Now that Obama is seen as lost, the corrupt MSM is trying to hold the Senate for themselves... er, for the Democrats.
First, we must have a majority and that may mean using some we wish we didn't have to use but this is the reality of the situation.
With Dims in control, we've lost everything.
Thanks “Jonathan” for providing proof-positive that my suspicions for the past week have been correct.
The leftists and the libs know that the WH and the congress are gone.
They desperately fear losing a majority in the senate, too.
Jonathan Frankenstein or whatever his name is has just proved that they are trying to control losing the senate as well.
This is a lot like election night ‘94, with Dan Rather babbling on at about midnight EST about some Dem having the chance of holding a Senate seat in WA, while both houses were flipping to the Republicans.
Guess the author hasn’t bothered to look at the absentee/early voting returns. Ds are being blasted. In states they led by 20, they lead by 5-7. In states they led by a little, they are trailing huge. I think Mandel will pull out a win, Brown, Heller, Cruz, Mourdock and Flake will hold, we’ll take NE and MT and WI and VA (net +5) and FL and PA are still close. And I’m forgetting someone-—who?
I don’t believe a word this guy says, he can’t even get the year correct.
We have to get rid of Harry Reid.
Then we have to elect someone besides Mitch McConnell to lead the Senate.
We need someone who still has a pair.
Youre right, I don’t know who that would be.
If the Democrat lose their majoprity we are still no better off if we do not have a leader with a pair.
I hope so.
The last three times this Senate "class" has been up, the party that held a Senate majority has lost it.
R to D in the Democrat monster year of 2006.
R to Even in the 2000, when Gore won a slight plurality.
D to R in the Republican monster year of 1994.
There were probably others, but the only close race I remember in any of these elections where the party that lost the Senate won was Tennessee in 2006 (Corker over Ford). The Senate races look close today, and if BO loses small, I can see the Democrats holding the Senate, if they win a bunch of races by a little. So we need to keep working. Hard. And make sure that they lose all of the close races.
Superficial. RINOs lose too, and Dems who are too leftist for their states get elected.
No, the national media is the biggest factor. Senate candidates have to be excellent TV performers, and conservative ones must be able to withstand inventive negative “earned media” from the networks.
The networks can’t successfully attack conservative congressmen without very good cause.
The analysis doesnt seem wrong to me. We have very conservative congressmen who have served in safe House districts, who get nominated to run for the Senate, and their views turn out to be too far to the right of public opinion statewide to allow them to get elected.
In some cases, you may be correct. However, I’m more concerned that we end up nominating Senate candidates who become difficult to elect not because they are too conservative, but because they don’t know how to state their case or run their campaigns.
We had several Senate opportunities this cycle that should have been easy wins that we have virtually handed to the Dems because of bungling PR nightmares or just plain inability to be articulate. This has not only hurt their own campaigns, but has hurt the national campaign as well.
We may well yet pull the Senate out, but it should have been much, MUCH easier than this. I have stressed several times in this forum the need for an effective national election committee to vet the local candidates and prep them for national scrutiny. In a very real sense, we are only as strong as our weakest link, because the media love guilt by association.
I was no fan of Lugie here in Indiana, but he probably voted R 80% of the time.
Donnelly if elected will vote R 20% of the time, just enough so he can campaign as “bipartisan Joe”. And on any of the important votes, he’ll be a solid D.
Long time, no FReep.
How’ve you been?
Any new books in the stores or in the pipeline?
I have an agent for my novel and it’s circulating well. No commitments yet, but we’re getting close, and I’m optimistic.
Good analysis. I’m not sure who you’re forgetting, but here in PA Casey is being tied to the HUD waste in Philly, so that isn’t going to help the DNC in this state, which went pretty solidly for Obammie the Commie in 08. Combine that with the attack on coal, which impacts the western part of the state, and we may see a more significant shift here. But I’ve given up trying to predict the intelligence of the voters en masse.
"A Patriot's History of the Modern World, vol. 1, From America's Exceptional Ascent to the Atomic Bomb, 1898-1945," went on sale about a week ago. It has gotten buried in the election stuff (as I warned it would), but I hope after Romney wins we'll see the floodgates open.
Also, check out my new film, "Rockin' the Wall" (www.rockinthewall.com) It is out on (gulp) PBS in ALL major markets in prime time. You'll see an airing schedule at the website!
You left out Akin in MO?
That’s the one. I think he’ll win.
With Republican enthusiasm very high across the nation and the majority voting straight party ticket, I have high hopes to take the senate.
I’m not sure that the Akin or Mourdock stories can be called PR or communication problems.
I think both men stated their true opinions about abortion in the case of rape, and most people in their state disagree with those opinions. That’s not a misstatement, or clumsy phrasing, that’s being too far out from the center to get elected.
That’s excellent news all around!!
I’ll check out both links.
These analysis-es, and I use that term loosely, that act like incumbent Senators should just lose by default drive me nuts.
So, that one issue does them both in?
>>> If the Democrat lose their majoprity we are still no better off if we do not have a leader with a pair.
THIS! ^^^^^^ ABSOLUTELY!
I agree there, Romney +6 (As economic model suggests) does a lot more than +2. My less exuberant self thinks the -$4500 median family income decline will be the determinant. But if Tyrone Woods' father's story is getting some traction below the radar or actually comes to the surface, I think the margin could grow; hence the effort to suppress it/confine it to Fox.
The RINO-Dem coalition will still run the show
We shall see. What we do know is that each of them was ahead in the polls until they were asked about that issue, and rather than lying, they stated their honest opinions and fell sharply in the polls.
They were asked about that issue because it was a trap, a set up.
The media wanted them to lose.
They really have no power to do anything about abortion, and the ones asking them know that.
They fell into the trap.
You say they answered truthfully and it caused them political problems.
I say, they didn’t need to say things like “legitimate rape”, or, “a woman’s body shuts down during rape so she’s unlikely to get pregnant”, or, “if a pregnancy results from a rape, I have to believe the pregnancy was God’s will”.
They could have stated their views on abortion in cases of rape, without saying incredible stuff such as they said. Just say, my personal view is that life begins at conception, and even if the result of rape, my view is that the human life conceived has rights and should not be aborted because of those circumstances.
And they could add, again that’s my personal view...I don’t have the power to do anything about the way the abortion law is. I can vote on things like no federal funding for abortion, but that’s about it. I can vote for Supreme Court justices who might, and I stress might because I don’t know, eventually want to overturn Roe V Wade, but if that were to happen, each state would once again get to decide about abortion.
I think the Republicans have to have 61 in the Senate to get rid of Obamacare. The Democrats will probably filibuster anything the Republicans might try to do, especially repeal of Obamacare.
No, they just have to have a majority for a budget resolution, the same way Obamacare passed in the first place.
Your home page pretty much explains your rino complaints against republican primary winners that you find “too far to the right”.
There aren’t a lot of freepers that complain that the current GOP is too far to the right for their tastes, especially since FR is so pro-God and conservative.
It has nothing to do with my tastes. When a congressman in a safe, gerrymandered district steps up to the state level, sometimes his views on a particular issue are too conservative for him to be elected.
In Tennessee we almost did the same thing a few years back nominating a “true conservative” named Ed Bryant, whose nomination would have resulted in a Senate victory for Harold Ford, Jr.
Some peoples views are just too far from the wide part of the bell curve to be electable. Akin and Mourdock appear to be proof of that.
It isn’t as though these are weirdo, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, libertarian pervert types, these are mainstream people, republicans that won the party primaries.
If you want to move the party even farther left, then you need to figure out how to eliminate the primary system.
Mainstream? So mainstream that they are going to lose to, in one case a very unpopular incumbent in Claire McCaskill, and in the other, losing a seat that had been held by a Republican for several decades, in a very Republican state.
I think if you poll on abortion you find being pro-life is mainstream, but being pro-life in the case of rape, being not mainstream. It’s a clear dividing line. On the left you could have the same phenomenon with being “pro-Choice” being mainstream, but partial-birth abortion being horrifying to a majority.
Like I said, if you think that normal republicans winning republican senate primaries are too right wing for you, then you need to figure out a way to cut out the republican primary voters.
Alternatively, primary voters could take into account the prospective electability of the candidates in the primary and not only their ideology. Doing that in Missouri would have been wise.
You are wrong. Because of the tea party and Palin, republicans made historic gains last election, not just in numbers, but in better, more conservative candidates.
Just 2 years ago, conservatives succeeded in moving congress and the senate right, and it resulted in you trying to figure out a way to fight that success.
Yours is just another plea to keep government as liberal as possible but your plea isn’t real or concrete since you don’t seem to have anything in mind that can shut out the republican voter from republican primaries and choosing their own candidates.
Your complaint is against conservatism,
Just the opposite, I’d like to have been able to build on that success by taking Republican control of the Senate, but that will not likely be happening.
About 50% of the population is “pro-Life” and 50% “pro-choice” to use the euphemisms of choice. But when you change the question to the case of rape, 50% of the pro-Life contingent becomes pro-choice. So a candidate in an average state, who goes on the record with that position, will have the support of 25% of the population, and be opposed in some cases virulently by 75%.
One can try to make the case that the 25% are right and the 75% are wrong, but in the context of an electoral campaign that doesn’t work.
If you want to build on the conservative tea party success of 2010, then don’t fight against it for 2012, and I can’t help but notice that your complaint seems to be about abortion.
It seems that your anti-religion, pro-libertarian liberalism is the reason for your coming out so strongly against conservatism and republican candidates that you find too conservative.
I really don’t even care about that issue, I just know that for a lot of people on either side of it, it’s the ONLY thing they care about, and a lot more are in favor of the Democrats’ position on abortion in the case of rape than that of Mourdock and certainly that of Akin.
If it makes you feel better to call me names, fine, but I happen to believe strongly in the principles of the Tea Party. I just don’t believe those principles had to do with abortion at all. The Tea Party was about deficits and taxation, subjects that Republican candidates would do better to stress than their abstruse theories of human conception.
Some of tea party candidates are just not ready for prime time. They are just so hung up on sex they just can’t resist the bait when the MSM dangles it in front of them. All it takes is one question they’re off like a goofy Labrador puppy after a treat.
Look at the way even a seasoned campaigner Santorum got lost in the weeds on contraceptives and porn. Ask one of these guys about whether adult single woman should be allowed to have sex or a wear chastity belt...or should a grown man be allowed to subscribe to Penthouse and they’d be shooting themselves in the foot as fast as they could pull the trigger.
That was a pretty weird post, and you seem unduly obsessed with sex issues, chastity belts? Penthouse subscriptions?
The republican senate candidates all seem to be reasonable candidates that won their republican primaries, none of them seem to share your eccentric, overt sexual issues obsession.
Santorum is an old rino hack that was run out of office in a history making wipeout.
You sound like another liberal that despises the tea party and any influence that the Reagan/conservative wing can have over the rino portion of the GOP, what are you doing at FR?
Abortion and social liberalism seem to be your real concerns and what you want the GOP to move left on.
As far as the tea party, it is mostly made up naturally, of social conservatives, social liberals are overwhelmingly democrats.
That was even weirder, look at my posts, there is nothing projected, yet you seem obsessed with sex issues and went on an irrelevant rant about chastity belts and porn magazines, porn, and sex in dating.
All this about the Senate races and the tea party.