Skip to comments.'Perfect storm' could give Dems 'magic 60' in Senate (They're already celebrating...ugh!)
Posted on 10/08/2008 1:53:49 PM PDT by Braak
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the face of an economy in crisis and a deeply unpopular president, some analysts believe the situation is ripe to give Democrats a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in November. Analysts say Democrats may control the Senate after the November election. Analysts say Democrats may control the Senate after the November election. It's "the perfect storm," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
That is so.
Great job, Republicans! Your short-sighted greed and corruption completely “trashed your brand” in a short 4 years!
They don’t call ‘em the STUPID party for nothing.
2010 looks very difficlut, with lots of COP retirements coming and FL, IA, MO, NH, NC, PA seats to defend.
not easy to pick up any seats, and quite possible to lose another 3 or 4.
2012 and 2014 will be quite good, though
Virginia is a lock for Mark Warnner.
"With Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens on trial on corruption charges, Alaska could go to Democrats as well."
I thought Ted Stevens is even or ahead.
"Minnesota, Mississippi, and Kentucky are the three states most likely to determine whether Democrats get to 60,"
Is Coleman really in jeopardy of losing to Air America comedien?
Rothenberg said, adding the unexpectedly tight race in North Carolina between incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole and state Sen. Kay Hagan could turn out detrimental for Republicans as well.
I thought Dole was still ahead. Has North Carolina really gone that 'blue'?
2012 will be great, as long as that Mayan apocalypse comes through.
Scary as hell!!
Don’t worry if this happens the Democrats are headed towards a “Perfect Storm” themselves from which they will not survive nor from which will they ever recover.
Kentucky and Georgia’s senate races are getting tighter.
The anti-incumbent thing.
Er, no. McConnell is not in any trouble at all in KY; one loopy poll had Coleman down, but another poll just the previous day had him up big. Perhaps the MS seat is in trouble---I don't know. But Liddy Dole is ahead and apparently gaining some momentum.
The seats in trouble are Sununu, Warner, Domenici (retirement, but the replacement is running behind), and Allard (retirement, but this is a close race). Smith seemed to be safe earlier, but now is in a close race. That's five, plus MS, for six, or 56 seats plus two RINOs and Joe Lieberman. However, Joe has made it clear he won't vote with the Dems on everything.
Agreed. However, why is the whole "throw out the bums" purge the incumnbants thing is to get rid of only Republicans and replace them with ultra-left-wing-big-spending Democrat liberals?
Well, there is not much we can do about it then. Even if there is record conservatives and Republicans turnout, there is just more of them now than there are of us. Liberalism in this country is taking over. It seems this nation wants to be more like Europe, well then we go the way of Britain, Germany and France.
I dont think the Democrats will get to 60 seats. 57-59 is a real possibility. Theyve got 4 seats sewn up (Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire) and are strongly contending in four other close races (Alaska, Oregon, North Carolina, Minnesota). Of the latter group of four, Id rank them in the following order of vulnerability: Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, Elizabeth Dole, Ted Stevens. I personally believe that Coleman, Dole, and Stevens will survive but Smith appears to be going down. That will give the Dems 56 seats four years after the Republicans had 55. The Dems will control every Senate seat on the West Coast and all but Maines two seats in New England. Theyll also gain at least one southern seat and two western seats.
Mississippi was always a pipe dream, IMO. I dont think the Democrats have a real chance in Maine, Kentucky, or Georgia, despite any recent polls. Collins is still polling over 50%, Chambliss has never trailed in his race, and McConnell has also consistently led even with some recent polls showing things closer.
that skit is great
I agree with everything except CO. There is recent polling data showing the Republican coming on there. The same phenomenon happened with Allard, who was slated to lose, but won.
come on Dec. 2012.
“Its fine. 2 years of unfettered liberalism will result in 12-16 of rebounding conservativism. “
2 years of unfettered liberalism happened in 1932-1934 and 1964-1966 ...
The Republicans did not gain back control in either case for a long time after that.
Furthermore, the liberal regulations imposed were NOT rolled back. IT WAS A PERMANENT SHIFTING OF THE COUNTRY TO THE LEFT.
This is a very very bad thing. The best we can do is warn people about the dangers of complete Democrat control. People need to VOTE CHANGE IN CONGRESS. VOTE GOP IN CONGRESS TO RESTRAIN OBAMA.
The sophomoric claim that it will be okay because down the road a conservative will be elected misses the point: They are elected to clean up the mess that the liberals created. LBJ's liberal mess STILL LIVES ON in a Medicare program that is a leviathan threatening the whole fiscal basis of the country. LBJ's welfare programs didnt get reform for *30* years.
FDR's New Deal was the same thing. It took 20 years to get a Republican in the White House, and when he got in, he met with Republican leaders in the Congress and said he wasnt going to repeal the New Deal programs. They stayed, forever.
When it comes to socialism, you have to kill in the crib or it will grow and be impossible to kill.
Obama's liberalism will be an outrageous imposition on the whole country. The taxpayers will get reamed.
“Agreed. However, why is the whole “throw out the bums” purge the incumnbants thing is to get rid of only Republicans and replace them with ultra-left-wing-big-spending Democrat liberals?”
Someone needs to push the message:
THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE INCUMBENT PARTY IN CONGRESS!!!
A hugh loss.
Unfortunately, half the battle, at least, in a Senate seat, is convincing a good candidate to run 12-18 months out. You need that long to organize, raise money, and get name ID up. Sure, anybody can point to exceptions, but the time is usually vital, especially when running for an open seat, or for against incumbent of either party. If good candidates don't decide to run early, and lay the ground work, it is almost impossible to make up for that fact just before the election.
Unfortunately, Bush has managed to have the Katrina debacle during the 2005 decision window, and the depth of the Iraq war unpopularity during the 2007 window. That lead strong Democrtats to line up to run, and strong Republicans to decide to do something else with their lives.
I'm still supporting McCain, but I shudder to think what will be going on to discourage Republicans during the 2009 decision window if he does prevail. Sixty Democrat seats in 2011 looks probable
come on Dec. 2012.
Dec 21 to be exact. The day Obama is appointed dictator for life.
Looking ahead to 2010, I think the map is against the GOP. They have numerous vulnerable incumbents including:
Mel Martinez (FL)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
David Vitter (LA)
Jim Bunning (KY)
Arlen Specter (PA)
George Voinovich (OH)
Richard Burr (NC)
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.