Skip to comments.For Senate Democrats, 60 seats still a possibility (C'mon Al Franken!)
Posted on 11/15/2008 7:31:26 PM PST by Libloather
For Senate Democrats, 60 seats still a possibility
Posted: Nov 14, 2008 09:50 AM EST
By Glenn Thrush and Josh Kraushaar
The dream of 60 Senate seats simply refuses to die - with positive signs suddenly popping up for Democrats in all three unresolved races.
Around 1 a.m. EST, news that Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has inched ahead of Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens rekindled flagging Democratic hopes they would reach the mythical filibuster-proof majority.
In Minnesota, Al Franken has steadily eroded incumbent Republican Norm Coleman's lead before the recount has even begun - with a highly contentious recount on the way.
And in Georgia, a poll released Thursday shows Democrat Jim Martin within striking distance of Sen. Saxby Chambliss in a surprisingly close runoff scheduled for Dec. 2.
If Democrats sweep those three races, they'll hit 60. At the moment they are stuck on 57 - a respectable six-seat pick-up for 2008.
But a three-seat sweep, which seemed impossible 24 hours ago, now seems merely improbable.
"A day ago, the coroner was ready to sign the death certificate on 60 - and now it's back on life support," says Jennifer Duffy, Senate analyst with the non-partisan Cook Political Report.
For starters, Begich would have to maintain his lead over Stevens - and widen it to 1,500 votes if he wants to avoid a recount. Franken's recount would have to continue trending his way, and Martin will have to hope that Georgia turnout for a runoff is strong enough to guide him to an improbable victory in a state John McCain won by 5 points.
"Will we get 60 seats? Well, I have the same answer today that I had the day before the election. It's possible, but unlikely," said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Charles Schumer, meeting with reporters Thursday.
In a frantic bid to fend off the unthinkable, the GOP is ratcheting up the rhetoric seeking to energize donors and voters sapped by John McCain's decisive loss.
"At this point all that stands between an unchecked, liberal, Democrat tyranny in Washington are two yet to be determined races and a run-off in Georgia," said John Randall, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
"Both parties are training their sights on the conservative Peach State," Randall added. "The prospect of sixty seats is still very much real, not to mention frightening, and the remaining firewall could very well be Sen. Chambliss."
Schumer announced Thursday the campaign committee will launch its first advertisement in the Georgia Senate runoff - a cable spot worth about $100,000. A newly released poll from Research 2000 shows Chambliss narrowly leading Martin in the runoff, 49 to 46 percent.
"Jim Martin has come out of the gate swinging with the right message, that you can either vote for a senator who will work with Barack Obama to change the direction of the country, or one who will obstruct change in every step of the way," Schumer added. "We're committed to this race 100 percent."
In Minnesota, where only 206 votes separate Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Democrat Al Franken, Schumer accused "the hard-right wing" of America for trying to obstruct the recount process.
He also accused conservatives of unfairly criticizing the recanvassing process in Minnesota, where Al Franken netted about 500 votes from his immediate post-election total - mostly over precinct tabulating errors.
In a related development, Franken attorney Marc Elias announced he was suing to force state elections officials to explain why they had rejected some absentee ballots.
Begich has rallied after entering the Alaska count about 3,000 in the hole, edging ahead of Stevens by 814 as of Wednesday night.
The Begich campaign said the Anchorage mayor was "cautiously optimistic" about winning with about 40,000 ballots remaining because many of the votes already counted came from conservative parts of the state.
"More than 59,000 ballots were counted yesterday," Bethany Lesser, spokeswoman for the Alaska Democratic Party, wrote in an e-mail. "Of the districts not counted on Wednesday, Begich won all of them on Election Day (for full disclosure, these are regions that have smaller populations)."
...that's he's a common criminal.
The last poll results I saw before I went to bed election night showed Chambliss with over 50%, so why a runoff? Did the rats generate enough votes to force it somehow???
GWB legacy, lose 2006+2008 and democrats get complete power. This Autoworkers bailout keeps GWB in spotlight. We definitely have a harder time than 1992. The 700B bailout gamble GWB did definitely lost and now he has handed democrats everything they need to to completely socialize america. Coleman voted for bailout, Frankin against
What difference does it make? There will always be a handful of RINO’s available to break any filibuster. How about McCain?
So now we know that the army of Obama lawyers went to Alaska for more than just digging up dirt on Palin... They were making sure the fix was in.
Dont they get to count Specter, Snowe, Grahm etc?
Nah nah hey hey, kiss the Senate goodbye. They’ll have 58 if Stevens loses, plus the two who caucus with them and any liberal RINOs that cave under pressure. Just hope Franken loses for the overall good of mankind but don’t get all depressed about the Senate being fillibuster-proof, cuz that’s already all but a sure thing.
The bailout was the beginning of the end of this chapter of the Republican Party. And quite possibly the end of the Republic for that matter.
I used to think that history would be kind to GWB when looked at impartially a decade from now.
Now I think that we will see what a fraud he really was. If it weren’t for the War, I doubt I would have voted for him in 2004.
On election night it looked like Chambliss had avoided a run-off, but he wound up about 8500 votes short of an absolute majority of the votes.
Liberals are like toddlers........things don’t go their way and they hold their breath, stamp their feet, cry, scream, pitch a fit...anything but accept reality.
**We will do anything to reach 60 - The DNC**
And we’ll keep counting til 2012 if NECESSARY
We need to stop worrying. We all know that the Supreme Court is mostly held by good, law-abiding judges. If ANY of these races end up there, they will be shot down. The Dems will have to suck it up at that point.
There will be no fillibuster-proof Senate. There just won’t. It isn’t in the cards for them.
I am sending a check to Chambliss as we speak. Glad to know there is still somethig I can do to help my country.
Hmmm... imagine that.
What I find really odd... why is it that the vast majority of “provisional” ballots are cast for the Democrat candidate?
This is why I don’t see that the GOP, at any political level, has actually seriously learned anything from the ‘08 elections. As far as the U.S. Senate is concerned, the NRSC is still pushing to stop the D’s from getting sixty D’s while also completely ignoring all of the remaining Senate RINO’s, who are more often than not agreeing with the D’s on many issues and on many votes. The GOP is totally useless when they just as equally treat the RINO’s as if they are complete conservatives on all of the issues! A continuing “politically spineless” GOP will always remain a political minority!
If Franken wins, will he get with Senator Feinstein and author a Franken-stein Bill?
I’d like to give Chucky a hard right!
As for where we are now, The Republican Base abandoning GWB like it did (right or wrong on a specific issues) is what led to this. In doing so the base allowed the MSM to completely trash the GOP brand image (via push polls and constant attacks of the "R" President). In the this age of 24/7 news cycles this gave the MSM all it needed which they ran with constantly. This had a large effect on indy's and moderates, pushing them away from the "R" brand altogether. And reality is when it comes to immigration GWB was likely right strategically (for the need for the GOP to be seen as part of a real solution within the Hispanic community) but the WH was wrong tactically about how to go about it (border issues should have been offered up / implemented first). Our base, while right tactically then through away our strategic needs because they did not support the tactical actions of the WH on the issue. Sad.
And lets get off "GWB isn't a real conservative / Republican" - One could say the same thing (make the same associated lists) with regard to R. Reagan to suggest he was not a Republican (SDO on SCOUTs, tax raises of 86, further expansion of failed Soc. Sec and FICA tax increases, Full Amnesty with no requirements whatsoever when the problem was at a much more manageable level to address fully, cutting and running from Beirut, etc, etc). Reality is however, both R. Reagan and GWB were/are d*mn fine men and did without question what they thought was best for this Nation, not from the politically, they were leaders and both made the world & more importantly the United States safer because of their leadership.
HOw did Frankin vote against anything again ? ????
he was never in office.
Troll ,Buzz back to the DU.
so your happy about that ?
Excuse me, but the Democrats in the Senate will decide who actually wins. Article I Section 5 of the US Constitution:
“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,...”
The Democrats will probably get their 60. Remember, for Democrats “fair” means getting their own way. Kind of like “Mir” for the Soviet Communists (peace) meant a Communist state.
Wouldn’t it be cool if they got their 60 and then Lieberman switched?
Be ready for anything. Democrats don’t let anything get in the way of grabbing more power. Republicans should do what they can while Obama is busy buying ipods for his loyal zombies.
The bailout was right in the prime election window so Frankin took the position against the bailout, while Coleman was one of those who voted for it. I am not at all saying that I support Frankin or that he was anything but cynical, What I am saying, as I did in my warning post below, that this Bill pushed by GWB, swallowed by McCain, hurt republicans on election day (helped democrats) and gives democrats the PR that republicans are socialists for the rich, and that any giveaway they propose is moral, and republicans that oppose them are hypocrites defending only the rich. I am thinking this is the worse thing GWB did to us, although I have a huge list.
Why Republicans supporting democrat's investor bailout bill is political suicide October 1, 2008
So much of what has happened with this election made it seem like people on both sides were trying to throw it to the Democrats. In 1992 and 1996, I believed, and still believe, that Perot ran strictly to keep Bush from a second term and to give the election to Clinton. This year, it seems like the whole Republican party hierarchy was working for Obama.
You have to be kidding. It was GWB BETRAYING conservatism that made Obama’s talking points about being a moderate and cutting taxes and tracking down Bin Laden sound not so bad to the rest of the country.
My list refined :
1) promising the war would pay for itself(Cheney), and yes he DID scare democrats and republicans into voting for it. But it was HIS invasion, he said to world TRUST ME, Only a few hardcore delusional believers now think he was forced to invade immediately, and they cant win elections.
2) Claiming we were winning Iraq 2005-2006 and magically finding out after midterms 2006 we were really losing, when even FNC was reporting we were losing. Then demanding the money and troops we needed back in 2004. This probably killed GWB more than anything with voters.
3) Selling out on energy 2006, no drilling, ethanol instead, same with no child left behind, no vouchers, prescription drug give-away bankrupting medicaid(that's three)
4) Largest government and deficit in American history (we stand for what?)
5) Illegal amnesty bill including SS benefits for illegals (you too McCain), forcing rest of party to oppose him, prosecuting Border patrol agents and giving illegal drug dealers immunity to testify against them.
6) Driving down the dollar to stimulate HIS economic boom, not realizing the resulting inflation would kill it (DUHH, 1970s anyone?)
7) Almost forgot setting up Scooter Libby by forcing white house staff to sign waivers to protected press sources leading to members of press thrown in jail, forced to rat on Scooter, when Bush/Cheney themselves used executive powers to avoid any charges themselves(Scooter did not leak the name, you ever hear GWB say who did ?). He gave MSNBC a daily show theme for a year. Did you see justice department throwing press members in jail for CIA leaks, or for Secret prison classified leaks? No, only one case of this power , against Scooter.
8) Financial bailout bill, twisting R party arms to sign a piece of crap that made things worse and lost seats in congress and probably McCain's election too (McCain was tied to Bush after this and went down with him. He ended capitalism with this one.
9) Lastly, Pelosi/Obama, Reid, his final legacy. I will think of GWB every time they do something I don't like, WHICH IS EVERYTHING!
Yes, he did some things I liked, Alito and Roberts being my favorite, but so much crap. Complete destruction of party. Term conservative is considered an insult.
FROM NATIONAL REVIEW (DO YOU NEED MORE REFERENCES??)
RE : instability in the stock market was the direct result of Bush coming out a few weeks before the election and declaring the end of the economy without a 900 Billion bailout.
EXACTLY! Of course there is NO conumer confidence after he did this(thanks for reminding me) . He made investor confidence dependent on endless bailouts
The Somali terrorist community in Minnesota went whole hog for Franken—neither his Jewsihness nor his wild immoral positions meant anything to them.
Muslim goals need a useful fool.
You have no idea about the WOT/Iraq to suggest such (and citing FNC is meaningless). You clearly know nothing about FID nor COIN as it was because of our actions / OP tempos of 05/06 that allowed for the success we see in Iraq today, to happen. The "surge" did not bring success to Iraq, it was simply great timing in filling the vacuum that was created because of our actions of 05/06 (destroying AQ and their mimics within Iraq, along with the containing of JAM).
That void was going to be filled by some source. The "Surge" was exactly what was needed to fill it. But the only reason that void existed was because of our successes of 05/06. But those with no Mil-experience and further who were never there on the ground don't understand this reality (especially news sources).
If Franken accompanies BO to DC, we will have Caligula AND his horse.
(Apologies to horses.)
“Coleman voted for bailout, Frankin against”
Uh, Franken can’t vote against anything.
“How about McCain?”
It’ll never make any sense to me why McCain didn’t retire from the Senate when he launched his presidential run. He had to know that in the event that he lost he’d be at best a snoozing J.Q. Adams. Better to let some new blood in, for the good of the party, I say. Unless, that is, McCain always planned on “reaching across the aisle” and betraying his party, thereby redeeming his reputation in the MSM. My best guess is that McCain plans to betray whatever vestiges of conservatism remain in the Republican party, as often as possbile.
They had 49 seats before plus two who caucused with them. They picked up six, will probably pick up Alaska and may pick up Minnesota. Georigia is a stretch, it would require a big Democratic turnout and a low Republican one.
Someone else asked me that. I was quick in typing.see 28
I am not going to argue with you on winning/losing since I was not there. But how could he decide we need all this addition troops and money, only immediately after the 2006 election? Rumsfield kept a big lie and GWB listened to no one else, not even FNC that was sympathetic to him?
But the public perception, and not just from NBC, but also FNC, was what I said. It is a totally rational conclusion. And it destroyed GWB and our party. Claiming PR does not matter means what we have now, Obama Pelosi.
Although I must admit this 900B bailout just before this election is definitely close. This guy really must hate republicans, or is a Dr Smith.
You (like many in the MSM) don't seem to understand the war in Iraq and what was and wasn't happening (and in what time frames). There were more troops in Iraq (numerous times) that equaled larger numbers than with what we put back in during the so called "surge" (prior to the surge). The surge came about because of the success we were having (fighting for, that is how you have to win aspects of wars) in 05/06.
SecDef Rumsfeld was key in allowing us to have the aggressive and non-stop Op tempos that we did throughout 05/06. Politics (and SecDef Rumsfeld and CinC GWB doing what was best for our men on the ground) is why after 06, he was replaced. No SecDef could be able to do his job if constantly before Congressional committees (as the DEM leadership promised, once they won in 06).
The reality is AQ went 'all in' in Iraq in 04. Zarqawi was one hell of a tactical commander. As AQs #1 in Iraq he brought chaos. But at the end of the day because of the leadership of GWB and Rumsfeld a dirty little secret came about, that being it was AQ who could not fight an effective multi-front war, not us. We most certainly could and did. Routing AQ out of Iraq (Zarqawi included) not too mention in a half dozen other places around the globe.
“...that’s he’s a common criminal.”
If you want to stop the criminals, support Saxby Chambliss.
I bet Liddy Dole voted for it too. Could have won if she had tought otherwise.
RE “You (like many in the MSM) don’t seem to understand ....The surge came about because of the success we were having.. “
Me, FNC, many conseratives in media, and most people (99%) don’t understand your point. Even many conservative radio talk show hosts pointed my point out when Rumsfield was let go, after the election. They asked, why this wasnt done sooner before election, and answered political must be it.
It wont sell and when you loose the PR war, you loose the war. And GWB lost almost everyone on Iraq(but not the surge) . So now we have Obama/Pelosi. If they reverse the progress, all the time and lives were for nothing. But maybe they wont.
You even lost McCain on this. He claimed the Rumsfield strategy was a failure. So maybe you are right and almost everyone else is wrong, so what? You lost the war at home with a hopeless message that could not be sold.
Furthermore, you have things exactly wrong on Rumsfeld, 06 and the politics of it. It was the politics of losing that election that cost Rumsfeld his position as SecDef (because no SecDef could do his job in front of a DEM Congress calling them into committee after committee). Therefor, for the best of our warriors down range GWB and Rumsfeld made the correct decision to have him replaced.
And now Here are some real realities regarding SecDef Rumsfeld. It was Rumsfeld who shoved, pushed and dragged the Big Green (Army) into modernization and I'm not talking simply Stryker's and new hats...
It was SecDef Rumsfeld who demanded an alternative Op plan for Stan (after Sept 11th) instead of the ridiculous Op plan demanded by Gen. Shinzeki and the Big Green. As they declared as the only way to be successful...Which called for 5 Divisions and a 6-8 month build up before we would be able to deal with removing the Taliban and al-Qeade from Stan...(and don't forget the 82nd's demand for bowling alley's before they wanted to play)...
It was SecDef Rumsfeld who demanded for all services to integrate and push the priority of CAS (which has saved thousands of U.S. lives to date...and killed thousands more of the enemy)..
It was also SecDef Rumsfeld who has turned our Shooters from SOCOM loose like never before...(an have routed AQ across the globe including Stand and Iraq) It was Rummy that allowed SOCOM to rid themselves of risk-adverse OGAs for their own Intel gathering.....It was SecDef Rumsfeld who got SOCOM authorized as its own war-fighting command.....(which of course hurt many feelings in the Big Green...as now they are often tasked as "support" for SOCOM...and not the other way around).
SecDef Rumsfeld supported a light footprint doctrine when it made sense. Both in Stan and for the original phase of OIF it made sense to go with the numbers we went with (and many conveniently leave out the fact that the 4th ID sat off shore because State couldn't pull its d*ck out of its own pants once again and make Turkey cooperate).
The reality of what was accomplished throughout this WOT over the last 7 years is historically amazing by any and all reasonable measures....We have not only killed or captured 3/4 + of AQ original Sr leadership, but we have killed tens of thousands of their mid-level foot soldiers (and that of their mimic organizations as well). We have removed two brutal regimes and planted the seeds for an atmosphere to spread allowing for a mass self-deportation away from radical Islam. These seeds of freedom and self-worth are our real true allies in this WOT.
The world is safer today (without question) because of the leadership and changes demanded by SecDef Rumsfeld.
I beg to differ. Schumer has proven to be an outstanding criminal.
RE :The world is safer today (without question) because of the leadership and changes demanded by SecDef Rumsfeld.
That may be true but that’s hard to sell if our selection for commander and chief (JMcC leader of party) says and runs on the opposite. If you cant get him, you have no one. I agree that Iraq was NOT the sole reason for 06+08losses. My original comment ,that you replied to, cited about 9, although Iraq is a big one. But maybe not as big as this latest mess.
I can tell you I find few republicans (moderates outside of FR) that claim Iraq was not a big black political mark on GWB and hurt republicans badly (mostly McCain supporters). They blame our current fiscal crisis on Iraq spending and believe we never should have got involved.
McCain is NOT a staunch Republican to begin with - But furthermore I don't accept your premise as it does not at all reflect those within the base that I speak with. Iraq was essential to the WOT from day one after Sept 11th - It is the heart of the ME, which had a brutal dictator that had started 3 wars, was a state sponsor of terrorism and had not abided by 17 resolutions putting a halt to Gulf War I.
McCain lost because he is a man that stands for nothing philosophy wise. He was never right on Iraq (tactically speaking) other than when he supported the "surge". He was right strategically on the need for victory. Which is why that alone should have put him into office instead of Obama.
This is the most intellectually dishonest and absurd notion I have seen / heard / read in quite some time - Whoever is touting our current spending on the WOT/Iraq as a reason for our current fiscal issues / banking is simply not willing to deal with reality (and looking to play politics).
Dealing directly with the threats of radical Islam (via both short-term as well as long-term solutions) is one of the best finanical investments our Nation can make. The world is simply too small any longer to think otherwise.