Posted on 11/04/2004 12:13:38 AM PST by Remember_Salamis
We can only hope...
And according to the American Conservative union ratings, Harold Ford's lifetime 20 rating puts him between Sen. Bayh's 22 and Lieberman's 19.
And so you think the three of them are conservatives? 20 on a scale of 100 makes one a conservative? Being 10 points to the right of Hillary makes one a conservative?
You DO understand there's a difference between rhetoric and reality, don't you? Have you never heard of politicians putting on a moderate face for the folks back home?
John Breaux is a moderate. He's at 46. Ben Nelson, 51. Linc Chafee, 43. Specter, 44.
After reading your post and the resulting comments I see that you've been exceedingly conservative in your estimates. (and we still get a gain of 5 seats) This leaves me with so much hope for the future.
60-40 is within reach and we'll be working on it starting now.
Why on earth would Katherine Harris pass up the Governor's House???
I've read that she was simply promised HIGHER OFFICE, not necessarily the Senate. Personally, I would take the Gov's House over the Senate.
Good lord, how many Carnahan's are in public office there???
I've thought of that myself! I would love for the President to appoint one of the senators from MD and then have the Gov. appoint LTGOV Steele to a senate seat!
How about appointing Mark Pryor of Arkansas? Gov. Huckabee will surely appoint a good republican to his seat.
20 is moderate/conservative -- for a democrat! Just like Arlen Sepcter's abysmal 43 rating makes him a LIBERAL republican, not a moderate like Dominici (73). Maybe I used a poor choice of words, but you get my point.
I'd rather Senator Henry Bonilla. Texas has to flavor its delegation with more Hispanic Republicans; too many white faces now.
Bonilla will make a great senator, but I'm a little worried about his approach to spending. He voted for the Medicare prescription drug act.
I also like Mac Thornberry and Sam Johnson. You guys have more GOP stars in Texas than you know what to do with.
So? So did Hutchison. So did John Cornyn. I don't see that as a negative in Texas politics.
Predicting elections two years ahead of time is a fool's errand (no offense intended). In an arena when a week can be an eternity, there are way too many unpredictable things that could happen in two years. I would be very surprised if 13 Senate seats switched parties in 2006. I could see either party picking up a couple of seats but barring some HUGE event, I doubt either party goes +5.
I don't see my former Congressman Nethercutt beating Cantwell. She is a weak candidate but unfortunately I don't think that George is a strong enough candidate to overcome the disadvantages that Republicans face in a statewide race in Washington. If Rossi loses the Governor's race, he is the man who would beat Cantwell in 2006.
NetherCutt came on very strong towards the end of the campaign, and he's now known statewide. He has a much better chance of winning in 2006.
In 2001, Fast Eddie crushed Casey in the primary simply because he was able to bring out the Philly vote in big numbers.
2006 is an off year election and you won't be seeing big turnout in Philly for Casey who is from the NE section of the state. Even though the lefties hate Santorum with a passion, Casey will not appeal to them much more because he is virtually identical with Rick on the one issue that matters most to the left --- the un-holy sacrament of abortion.
I see a growing Republican organization in Western PA along with ethnic Regan Democrats being able to return their hometown boy to the Senate. It matters much in the Western part of the state that 'one of theirs' is in the Senate to ballance the Eastern part of the state.
Just MHO.
The National Review yesterday speculated that Santorum's support of Specter over grassroots hero Pat Toomey may have angered his base, lowering turnout. I can't find it (it's in the Corner's archives), but this was posted today:
"IT'S TOO LATE... [John J. Miller]
But doesn't the case for Pat Toomey look a lot stronger today? It's no secret that Specter in any position of authority is a disaster for conservatives, but Specter's conservative supporters (such as Rick Santorum) kept making a prudential argument: The GOP Senate majority is just too slim to take a chance on Pat Toomey, especially when Specter is a sure thing for re-election. This is not an outrageous argument. But consider it today: Republicans don't need Specter for a majority, not even accounting for the possibility of a guy like Chafee bolting the party. What's more, Specter clearly didn't help put Bush over the top in Pennsylvania. So remind me: As we consider the prospect of Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter, why was this a good bargain? Last April, I was convinced that it was worth taking a chance on Toomey. Today, even more so.
Posted at 11:35 AM"
I doubt it.
Also consider this. Casey is not a sure shot to win the Rat nomination in 06, and even if he did, he would likely only get half-hearted support from the Rat organization in the general. The last time Rick ran, he faced a pro-life Democrat from Western PA, Congressman Ron Klink. Klink only won the Rat nomination with something like 40% in a 3-way race where the Philly vote was divided between two lefties from the Eastern part of the state. In a two-way race, he likely wouldn't have made it. Democrat primary voters are scewed way to the left of the general election voters. As it was, Klink was broke by the time he won the nomination and the state party didn't do much to help him. Rick had pretty much a cake-walk against a pro-life "conservative" Democrat.
BTW. If Klink had run against Specter, I am convinced he would have won. He just picked the wrong Senate seat to go after.
He had four children, three boys and one girl. One boy and the girl are gay. The gay son died. One son is now a Congressman. He took Gephart's seat. The lesbian is our new Secretary of State. Her "partner" was the judge who left the polls open in 2000 for her dead father to win (and, by default, her mother). This is going to have to be watched like a hawk because the Office of Secretary of State controls state voting. The last son is a bon-vivant party boy.
I've gotta disagree with this. Either Candice Miller or Mike Rogers would be an excellent candidate. I actually consider debbie one of the weakest incumbents for 2006.
As an aside, 2006 could see a large amount of Republican woman running for the Senate. In addition to Hutchinson and Snowe, Katherine Harris, Candice Miller, Condi Rice, Marsha Blackburn, Shelley Moore Capito, Heather Wilson, Jennifer Dunn, Margaret Farrow & Kerry Healey are all possible candidates (to at least some degree). Unfortunately, I believe that less than half of them are solidly pro-life.
What about Paul Cellucci? His is the name I've heard mentioned most-often about a possible Senate run on the GOP side.
Socialized health care is a negative in any sort of politics.
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.