Skip to comments.GOP Faces Tough Odds for 2008 Senate Comeback [Unless...]
Posted on 06/06/2007 1:46:46 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
Republican Party strategists, even under expected circumstances, knew they faced a difficult imbalance in the 2008 lineup of Senate races. The GOP have 21 seats to defend to just 12 for the Democrats.
Moreover, the political landscape in those 33 states looks forbidding, at least at this early stage of the 2008 campaign cycle. CQPolitics.coms current ratings of the races show five contests for Republican-held seats that appear highly competitive to just two for Democratic-held seats.
So it was with some political trepidation, along with sadness, that Republican officials received the news Monday night that Wyoming Republican Sen. Craig Thomas had died of leukemia at age 74.
State law requires the interim appointment of a member of the departed incumbents party a Republican, in this case to soon to fill the vacancy, even though Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal is a Democrat. But the law also sets up a special election in November 2008 to fill the remaining four years of the unexpired term Thomas won just last November.
It is unlikely that this unscheduled contest will rise initially into the competitive race category, given Wyomings normally strong Republican proclivities. But it will give the GOP a 22nd seat to defend, and could cause at least some diversion of vital campaign resources especially if the Democrats, emboldened by the six-seat gain in 2006 that gave them their narrow control of the Senate, were to decide to throw some political venture capital into the race.
For that reason, I will vote for ANYONE who wins the nomination -- even Rudy or Ron Paul.
What about you?
Actually, we need to win the Presidency with a Republican, and we also need to kill the Immigration Bill, which is what 85% of the population wants. If the Immigration Bill passes, many GOP faithful will work against those Republican Senators who support it. Sorry to break that news to everyone.
Well, I'd vote for Ron Paul regardless. Except he can't even win the GOP nomination, let alone actually be elected President.
However, any Republican Senator who votes for the Mexican Invasion Surrender Bill won't be going back to the Senate after his current term expires. You can take that to the bank.
RINOS put us in this position.
I will not vote for a RINO period.
You start out with guaranteed losers, like Graham and Hagel.
I'll strongly support my candidate (currently Romney) in the primary, and I'll vote for the eventual Republican nominee in the general. ...even if it's *gag* Giuliani or *gag* McFeign.
National elections are just too close right now to mess with third parties, IMO. All it does is throw the election to the other side.
Why would I vote for a RINO....If I wanted a democRAT I’d vote for a democRAT
On that note, I'm praying the Ralph Nader has a political viagra moment -- and enters the race. It's worked for us at least twice. Comon Ralph!
Or, better yet, Hillary could go Independent if Obama gets the Dem nomination. :-) :-) :-)
I am convinced there is a big pay off if they lose. Hey they can hang out at some cushy law firm with multi million dollar salaries or join a lobbying firm for big bucks. Or they can be like Scuzzborough and go to work for PMSNBC and be a GOP analyst.
It does not matter how they vote or if they are defeated, it is a win-win for these traiterous bastards.
>>>What about you?
I will only vote for a conservative, regardless of party.
Actually, I am so fed up with the Republicans with this amnesty bill, I don’t even care.
I couldn’t agree with you more Sleeping Beauty.
I won’t vote for any liberal. Period.
And they are currently doing their damndest to make those odds utterly insurmountable by pushing the National Suicide Amnesty bill.
Clearly, the Stupid Party is well named.
I wont vote for McCain under any circumstance; he has no allegiance to the Republican Party whatsoever.
Let’s consider this Senate thing the other way around ... let’s assume the Democrat wins the President.
IF the Democrat wins the President, they WILL INCREASE their hold on the Senate, and RETAIN the House.
And, they WILL COME INTO CONTROL OF THE SUPREME COURT.
These are very sobering thoughts.
A left-socialtist, green, multi-cultural America.
Now, if the Republican wins the President, in a close race, I’d say the most probable result in the Senate is net zero or net 1. But, in any case, I don’t see the Senate changing much one way or the other.
I do believe we will pick up the House, but not by a wide margin.
This means that, to really move our agenda, we will have to do, in 2010 and 2012, what George W. Bush did in 2002 and 2004. But, at least we will be setting the agenda, and making incremental gains, instead of seeing the other side moving to consolidate power in this country, the way they are consolidating power in Venezuela.
This is why I think we have to be very serious about backing a candidate who can win.
Now, relative to CQ ratings ... I can see some upside potential for our side:
Arkansas - if Gov. Huckabee sets his sights on the Senate. (Was he terrific at the 3rd debate or what!)
New Jersey (and possibly even Michigan) - Rudy is showing very well in this state (and also in New Jersey and Pennsylvania). If Tom Kean could be enticed into a second run, we might win.
Iowa - Gov. Pawlenty would make a good running mate for every one of the front-runners. This could help us in the senate race in this neighboring state (and also in South Dakota).
Montana - We lost a Senate seat, in a very close election, in this state with an ethically-challenged incumbent. There’s a certain former Governor out there who should have been our nominee last year for the Senate, and might be persuaded to be our nominee next year.
If we were to pick up one or two of these seats, where we’re not expected to be competitive - “surprise pick-ups,” if you will - we could might start to think of net 2.
Based solely on listening and reading protests, this immigration amnesty and illegals getting a pass on papers has disaffected a large number of legal and naturalized aliens. A case could made that strong messages to the black, Asian, and Hispanic communities regarding the cost to them that will come with this bill. Put the blame squarly on the Democrat party. Republicans can hold firm on this and hold on to this legislation until the McCain's and Gulianies are out of the race. Perhaps the republicans will feel less pressure if they realize that a strong border conservative is likely to be the nominee.
Don’t be so upset with immigrants. When the Democrats take over this country, you’ll be trying to be admitted into Australia.
Hint to win. Get in tune with what the voters want. If the GOP can't do that, well TS [an old army expression, first word tough].
Which will make up for the loss of RINO Coleman who, quite deservedly, will lose in 2008.
Sorry, but I do not see any logic in that statement at all. It flies in the face of historical precedent, and having Bush as president surely didn't do snot in 06.
Now if you replace that word "republican" with conservative candidates who we broken glass republicans can really support" then guess what?
I will bet real money on the GOP holding and winning other Congressional seats. Its not rocket science, but the GOP has lost my active support with all of the recent neo liberal, sell out American culture to garner potential future voters, courses of action.
I will support individual GOP candidates as I can, but the GOP will no longer have my support until I see real action on the value issues that move me. - and I see the end of the modern GOP as a major winner in American politics as it speeds down the highway to the lowest common denominator.
Stopped reading right there. - If you believe that the GOP will ever win either of those states again, then you are too far within the Matrix to be saved.
- Watch and remember after the 08 disasters that I stated that. 8^)
“Moreover, the political landscape in those 33 states looks forbidding,...”
Well, who is surprised by that prediction in view of how Bush is working hard to not only create tens of millions of new Dem voters but to also destroy the Republican Party in the process.
Yes, yes, yes!
Great analysis in your post. “Electability” here at FR may be a different animal that electability throughout the nation.
That is the point of the thread, really.
Coleman is a lot less RINO than losers Hagel and Graham.
I can't see how it's helping us.
Nope. Not gonna happen. No Rudy, no McCain. They're as bad as Hillary.
Who cares most republican spend, act, pander, and show no backbone, lack morals, just like DEMOCRATS. That’s why I don’t support the party anymore, I just support and vote for candidates. What we really NEED is a new Conservative party to take he place of the (on its last breaths-especially if Illigal Immigration Reform Passes) the Old GOP, Republican Party
Looks like a very manipulative article. If we lose these seats, not much will change because we frittered away the leadership and left ourselves with the guys that can’t decide which party they are in.
I’m sure we can get the Republican caucus in the Senate down to 40 if we try hard enough.
Then we can have socialized medicine, the homosexual agenda, open borders, multi-culturalism, a value added tax PLUS higher income taxes, the return of inflation, ...
oh, did I forget to mention gas rationing? Alternate driving days, a federally-imposed speed limit and a nationwide gun ban.
Let’s alienate all the voters and their representatives who might possibly align with us on the majority of issues, and then what? Purity?
Who says we don’t believe in suicide-bombers!
Let me do the math:
49 minus Hagel and Graham = 47
minus Coleman = 46
How about Gordon Smith, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins?
The way I figure it, we’re down to 42, and only two votes shy of not being able to sustain a filibuster.
I’m sure if we search real hard, we will find that last remaining Senator to kick out of the caucus, so that our country can go down the tubes, along with Venezuela, Zimbabwe, the country formerly known as Zaire.
USA 1776-2007 it was fun while it lasted!
If I have to fun my dogs for office; there is no way these traitors will stay in office.
After they pass this immigration bill...who really cares? I could care less who wins. We are a decade away from a President Salazar and a cabinet full of Hernandez’s, Trujillos and Velasquez’s. Calilfornia style.
“You can take that to the bank.”
Ironic Bush propably won’t give Libby “Amnesty” or a Pardon.
Yet he is willing to give 12-20 million ILLEGALS a “Pardon”.
Graham, what a loser. Even his own GOP convention booed him.
Ron Paul has about as much chance of becoming President as Ru Paul.
What about me? I’m so damn fed up with Republicans and their lies to the base I’m voting third party and really don’t give a rip if 10 new Dem Senators and 30 new Dem Reps get elected. If we’re going to hell in a handbasket at least we’ll get there quicker with the Dems in charge.
I'm sorry, but that post was inchoate rambling.
Do not point that finger at voters who will not vote for anyone just because they have a R next to their respective names.
Rather point that finger squarely at the candidate who have alienated the real base that delivers real victory.
Without them, there is no base at all, just another rainbow coalition incrementally shuffling it's way to the same platform as the middle of the political road Democrat Senators.
In such a case then TS, and goodbye to the GOP.
Purity? - How about something more than high spending, pro immigration, Spanish pandering nitwits who do not understand that those other groups that you speak of - and that they believe are their future - to come to the fore?
Im sure we can get the Republican caucus in the Senate down to 40 if we try hard enough.
It is not up to us to make such people electable. - It is up to them to rise to the challenge or pass into the footnotes of history.
If you are successful in getting the Democrats elected with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a majority in the House and the Presidency, don’t assume that I’ll be going to hell in the handbasket to which you will have consigned the United States.
My grandfather came here because the United States was the greatest country in the world. When that is no longer true, I will do as my grandfather did. There are plenty of decent countries in the world. I could consider, e.g., Chile, with lower taxes than the U.S., privatized social security and a voucher system for schools. They may require me to enter their country legally, and to actually learn Spanish before becoming a citizen, and I wouldn’t expect them to sign me up for welfare benefits on the day I arrive. But freedom is what is important to me, not welfare benefits.
Good lord !! What a choice. One that I would prefer to not have to make.
If a RINO wins the primary, which is possible, would I vote for the d’RAT instead. No, of course not. Would I vote third party...probably not.
Trouble with a third party or independent is that they would have no support inside the congress and the resulting power struggle would not lead to any meaningful reform. Not that I oppose gridlock in congress, but neither the d’RATS nor the Republicans would have any incentive to work with an independent POTUS but every incentive to work against him. The prospect of the results of such a situation frightens me.
Would you vote?
You have a good point, there. Thanks for posting.
Just curious -- how did you come up with Chile?
Build the Hunter border fence!
No comprehensive amnesty!
Enforce existing laws!
Republicans will win in a landslide!
Of course I would vote. I will do as I always do here in New York. I vote for the republican candidate, on the conservative party line.
Or even better than that, Big Al lets all his messiah of global warming crap go to his head and jumps in as a Green.
I thought it would neat that I would be required to learn Spanish and embrace the culture of their country. I don’t think they’d like us coming there in large numbers, and swamping their language and culture. I thought it would be fair of me to show some sympathy to the social conservatives who think the number of migrants is too large and too many from one place.
But, as for my #1 country outside of the U.S., I kind of like three: New Zealand, Australia and Ireland. I like Germanic Switzerland and Bavarian Germany (except I’m holding out to see if Germany can assimilate all the eastern Germans raised under communism and practically useless).
I really like Austria, the Netherlands, Estonia, Finland, Iceland and Norway.
These countries have well-established civil liberties, economic freedom comparable to or not much less than the U.S., and I would fit in, being the ethnicity I am.
BTW I have family in Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Germany, Great Britain and Italy, so I guess my family continues to be just a bunch of wanderers.
The problem with all these countries is that they’re not the United States. We may have our problems, but we’re the greatest country in the world’s history. We’ve done enormous good in the world, and our job is not over.
I really like Austria, the Netherlands, Estonia, Finland, Iceland and Norway.
Interesting. I'm looking at New Zealand and Ireland. But first I'm exploring Zurich and Venice. I'm also open to Amsterdam and Vienna.
I think many of us are leaving (the back door open) these days.