Skip to comments.Enter Sandman For Sandlin?
Posted on 06/14/2010 1:37:44 PM PDT by Slyscribe
Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, D-S.D., has lost her lead, for now, vs. the GOP nominee, state Rep. Kristi Noem, according to a new Rasmussen poll. Noem enjoys a 53%-41% edge over Sandlin, a leader of the Blue Dog Democrats who voted no on ObamaCare. Noem could be enjoying a typical post-primary victory bounce, but Sandlin has been polling well below 50%, a dangerous area for incumbents.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.investors.com ...
Stephanie voted for Nancy and will again. Nothing more need be said.
I predict a bloodbath for Dems this November, but I also predict they will be 100% completely blinded by their own errors and will continue trying to force reform NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES.
I think a lot of people feel this way-—that SPECIFIC votes aren’t important, that she is part of the regime and it must go.
SD Steffy seems to be done...
The tradition continues for strong, intelligent, and, yes, attractive conservative women. Think SD Sarah Palin.
I must admit to a certain bias. I went to high school with Kristi and her husband, Bryan (graduated with Bryan). They are two of the nicest, most down to earth people you could ever hope to meet. Now, a shameless appeal for money. If you can, send a few bucks to Kristi’s campaign.
By January 2011, 4 of the 6 members of the congressional delegations from the Dakotas will be Republican (we only hold 1 of those 6 seats right now); Hoeven will replace Dorgan as Senator from ND, while Berg and Noem will defeat Pomeroy and Herseth-Sandlin. In 2012 we will send ND’s other Senator, Kent Conrad, packing, maybe with AG Wayne Stenehjem; and in 2014 Tim Johnson will likely retire rather than have to face former Gov. Mike Rounds in the general election. Not a bad turnaround for the GOP in the Dakotas.
Far, far too long overdue. ND having gone 30 years without having last elected a Republican to any federal office is ludicrous, especially given its preferences at the statewide level. No other state in the union has gone that long without having elected at least one (even in MA & HI, pre-Brown & Djou, previously 1994 and 1988, respectively) in the modern era.
A 100 seat TSUNAMI! Nothing like it in recent history.
When you say “modern era,” do you mean post-1960 or something like that? MS and SC went like 80 and 70 years, respectively, without electing a Republican until 1964.
I assume that Vermont has the record for most consecutive years without Democrat congressional representation (from the party’s founding in 1824 until Leahy was sworn in as senator in 1975, right?).
I just looked it up, and VT elected a few Democrats to the House between 1836 and 1850, and in 1958 elected Democrat William Meyer to a single House term. Thus, the state’s longest streak without having a Democrat represent it in Congress was 106 years (from the end of Thomas Bartlett’s term in 1853 until the beginning of Meyer’s term in 1959).
Leahy was the first Democrat ever elected to the Senate from VT in 1974. After the 1823 breakup of the Democrat-Republicans and Federalists, from 1825 onwards, there had only been Adams Supporters, Anti-Jacksonians, Whigs, a Free-Soiler and Republicans. On the House side of things, they went 108 years without electing a Democrat*, not from Thomas Bartlett, Jr. in 1850 until William Henry Meyer’s 1958 one-term fluke win (which forced GOP then-Gov. Bob Stafford to have to abandon a plan to run for a second term and to knock off Meyer in ‘60). Meyer was the only Democrat to win the House seat until Peter Welch in 2006.
*(As an aside, after 1855 when the majority Whigs collapsed and were succeeded by the GOP, only a Greenbacker, Bradley Barlow, won a single term in 1878 and Dudley Denison won as an Independent Republican in 1874, but returned to the GOP fold in 1876)
When I first examined the distant past of Vermont’s representation I was surprised to see they once had as many as 6 house seats.
See this? She’s gone.
Slow growth accounted for the dramatic loss of seats starting in the 1820s (it was pretty strong growth from 1790-1810, going from 2 to 6 House seats, but it only had 6 from 1813-1823). It lost its 2nd seat back in 1932. We probably should be grateful that it doesn’t have 6 seats today, since 3 or 4 would probably be Leahy Democrats and 1 or 2 would be a liberal RINO and 1 would be a far-left Burlington Progressive.
One also has to take into account how the size of Congress grew through the years, and then stayed stagnant at 435 starting in 1913 IIRC.
If VT had 6 seats today, then it would likely be a Republican state, since only if the state were pro-business and pro-family could it increase its population from its 1830-1930 levels to 4 million.