Senate Races 2006 (Vanity)

NRSC, et al ^ | 9-20-2005 | TitansAFC

[PhilDragoo]

Click on the banner and click on articles on the left-hand toolbar. Read the long endorsement by Pfeffer of Bush's re-election.

He has aspects of David Horowitz and Zel Miller in his conversion--NM's preponderantly Dem, and he's an ex-.

Bingaman is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PAW, NARAL, NEA, et al.

Domenici said he couldn't put ANWR on the energy bill "because we wouldn't be standing her if we did."

And Bingaman was standing next to him. If NM dumped Bingaman, Americans could pay less at the pump before the next election for that senate seat.

And immigration? Read Pfeffer's position--to the right of that life-long Republican he endorsed for re-election.

He even endorsed the Minutemen's work, rather than slander them with "vigilantes".

Intelligent, principled positions vs Bingaman's leftist ATM.

[WhiteGuy]

scorched-earth?

Hardly.

If an elected official refuses to represent the best interests of his or her constituents, only a fool would continue to support that officeholder.

Same holds true for an unelected candidate.

And please don't start with the "any vote not for a repub is a vote for a democrat" nonsense. It just isn't true.

dewine has proved himself unworthy.

[zbigreddogz]

Will Hoevel run in ND?

Hoeven will run, and I'm guessing will win by a close margin.


Can the GOP actually take one from the Great Lakes states?


Yes. We likely will win Minnesota. The MN GOP has already rallied around one very strong candidate, and the Dem primary is getting bloodier every day, and none of the candidates are first teir. Why this is the case, I couldn't tell you, but it is. Let's hope the dems don't get their act together. If they don't, we'll destroy them. If they do, then we'll probably still win, but it'll be tougher.



Is Oklahoma REALLY in play?

You mean Ohio? Since there is no race in Oklahoma? If you mean Ohio, no. DeWine will be easily re-elected. The Governor's mansion...that's a different story unfortunately. And in some ways, deservedly so.

Is Santorum already dead and buried?

No. He's still sitting on a pile of cash, and Casy Jr. has a glass jaw. But it's gonna be tough.



Is Florida trending GOP, and can we pick-up Nelson's seat?

Probably not. But I wouldn't write it off yet. I sure wish Galligher would run for Senate. If he could beat Harris the primary, he'd trash Nelson. I actually think Harris could have beaten him, but all the negavite publicity about people worrying about her isn't helping. Still, I wouldn't write it off, but I'd put it in the 'leaning Dem' category.


Can the GOP win back Jefford's seat? Who could do it?


Jim Douglas maybe, maybe could have won it. Now, it is possible, IF the D's run a candidate. Which actually is possible, from what I understand. But this is the equivilant of a triple bank shot. I wouldn't put money on it.


Is Byrd an inevitable winner in a state that might be
renamed after him in the next ten years?

No. Heck, I think if we can even force him to run a real campaign, he might drop dead. I AM NOT WISHING FOR THIS, merely observing that he is really old, and not in great health. He might not run at all if Capito runs. And I think he'd be only slightly above 50/50 if he does.



Is there a true dark horse race out there where the GOP can pull an unexpected upset?

Michigan. Butler, while he has no name ID and is given litte chance, is extremely charismatic, and has won as an R in the most D city in the country (Detroit). I wouldn't bet on it, but if there was an unexpected race to turn our way, this would be the one.

That is, assuming you consider Maryland with Steele a real contest and not a long shot, which I don't. I think it's 50/50.

What will the final tally be?


GOP +1, possibly 2 or 3 though. Worst case is -1. I'd say win ND, MN, lose RI (which wouldn't be a real loss, who'd really care?), Penn & one unexpected (such as Talent or Burns) is the worst realistic case. Best realistic case would be win at least 3 of WV, MN, ND, NE, FL, ML, and lose nothing.

[zbigreddogz]

That's actually not true. DeWine's voting record is fairly conservative. Nowhere near Chafee.

He might not be the strongest conservative voice in the Senate, but he's no Chafee. He's not even a Voinovich.

[MikefromOhio]

if Voinovich can get easily reelected, DeWhine can too.

It all depends on if he separates himself from Taft and how soon he does it.

but my guess right now is that he will get re-elected with about 55-60% of the vote when the time comes.

[Politicalities]

Any Ohioan who loves freedom and believes in smaller government and votes for dewine, deserves what they get.........

You mean, freedom and smaller government?

Whether DeWine himself believes in freedom and smaller government is quite irrelevant. I'd vote for Senator Karl Marx on the GOP ticket before I'd vote for Senator Ayn Rand on the Democratic ticket... because a senator is just one vote out of 100. What's important is who the Senate majority is, because that majority decides what's brought to a vote, and controls (and chairs) every single committee. I'd never vote for a conservative Democrat for the Senate, because even if my Senator is conservative, Patrick Leahy is not, and I don't want him to chair the Judiciary Committee. Even if my Senator is conservative, Joe Biden is not, and I don't want him to chair the Committee of Foreign Relations.

I don't care if a candidate for the Senate wants to cut spending in half... if he's going to vote to make Robert Byrd the chairman of Appropriations, he doesn't get my support.

[WhiteGuy]

What's important is who the Senate majority is, because that majority decides what's brought to a vote, and controls (and chairs) every single committee.


So far, with the gop in charge, I'm underwhelmed.

If neither of the major party candidates believes in constitutional government I'll vote for someone who does.

[Politicalities]

So far, with the gop in charge, I'm underwhelmed.

Me too. Extremely so. But with Byrd controlling the purse strings and Leahy controlling Judiciary, I'm sure it'd be even worse.

If neither of the major party candidates believes in constitutional government I'll vote for someone who does.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Politicalities]

My point is, we've had the majority now for 10+ years! Where has it gotten us...smaller government? ...more freedom?

No, it has gotten us neither of these things. I agree. But having two major parties is an artifact of our first-past-the-post electoral system, and your choice is between Democrats and Republicans. I generally vote Libertarian in inconsequential state or local races, but when it comes to the federal government, I vote for the GOP, not because it's perfect, not because it's even good, but because it's superior to the Democrats.

If you really, truly have no preference between Republicans and Democrats, by all means vote for a third party. As for myself, I think the growth of federal power has long since passed a point of no return and freedom in this country is eventually doomed. So I'll vote for the Republicans who might put off the day of reckoning for a little bit, as opposed to Democrats who will work to bring that day closer as quickly as possible. And what the heck, at least Republicans will cut my taxes, so I can be a little more comfortable up until the country goes over the cliff.

[California Patriot]

I'm glad you stay-at-home losers are so lacking in intelligence and persuasiveness and energy. If you people had more of these qualities, we would never have won Congress in the first place, and Al Gore would be president.

[zbigreddogz]

82 isn't a bad number at all. The ACU by default endorses anybody over 80.

And DeWine hasn't publically lashed out over something stupid like Bolton.

[zbigreddogz]

No, 'we' have not had the majority, pretty much ever. If by 'we' you mean conservatives. Conservatives are a majority of the majority, and we have made steps to a. putting the breaks on the growth of government, and B. Cutting taxes, and C. keeping the moonbats from selling our country to the UN.

It might not be glamorous, and it might not be the only things we want, but you sitting on the sidelines dreaming about getting these things isn't going to help you any.

Politics moves slowly, American politics especially. True change doesn't happen in four years. Or even 10. Depending on how you count, it took the libs as many as 62 years to get us where we are. You can't really expect 62 years to be reversed in 10. Especially since for the first 6 of those, we had a Democratic President.

[EDINVA]

"There was a rumor that Lott might not run again"

before Katrina, at least, he was busy trying to get his old Majority Leader seat back when Frist retires .. don't know if the 'cane affected him enough to think of retiring.

[BillyBoy]

>> I once had high hopes that Jeanine Pirro would, at least, make the race against Hillary Clinton competitive. But so far, her campaign has gotten off to a stumbling start. I'm starting to wonder if she even wants the job. <<

Pirro wants to BE Hillary. Spencer wants to beat Hillary.

I'm trying to figure out why all the Jeanine supporters think she'll "bloody up Hillary" when Jeanine ruled out going negative from the start and campaigns as Hillary lite.

[WhiteGuy]

"stay-at-home losers"

Those who have no solid argument usually resort to name calling.

dewine is part of the problem. He has failed to advance the conservative cause.

You may continue to support these types if you wish, I refuse to contribute to the mess.