Posted on 10/28/2010 5:49:03 AM PDT by randita
And here's a thought....the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Hawaii is only a few points down..the race is winnable...and Hawaii's TWO Dem senators have a combined age close to Methusaleh....no way wishing anyone ill, but actuarial tables may come into play unexpectedly..
Because the Tea Party folks resolutely yrefuse to organize themselves, and thus were not ready to recruit and promote a viable candidate.
And the Delaware GOP already had a candidate who most likely would have won the general election.
If GA-5 goes into the R column, there'd be no Democrats left in Georgia's Congressional delegation. It's a minority-majority district that's D+26, making it the 30th most Democrat district in the country.
GA-8 in middle Georgia (Marshall) and GA-2 in SW Georgia (Bishop) are competitive and are ripe for the picking. GA-12 South-Central GA (Barrow) is possible.
But GA-13 South/Western ATL suburbs(Scott) GA-4 Dekalb/Rockdale(Johnson) and GA-5 Atlanta (Lewis) have to be super tsunami scenarios to go into the D column -- in that order. There wouldn't be any Democrats left if Lewis loses.
And doing so in the glow of smug satisfaction about "doing the right thing."
I think Sabato is spot on! I don’t think the senate is in play, but we’ll take over the House(a given) and some Gov races, other than that I think he hit it on top of the nail....sorry, but I think he is absolutely correct. BUT, I’ll be proud to eat all the CROW you folks fork over...gladly!! I’ll even pour some Louisiana Hot Sauce on it too! :)
I see. So conservatives in Delaware have nobody to blame but themselves.
Just sayin'
“As an example, Bennet just came out with an ad featuring a Buck statement that he “opposes separation of church and state.” Buck is now in full back-pedaling mode, of course.”
Per usual, and I don’t know why it is so, conservatives are on the wrong foot in framing this issue. The point to drive home and drive hard is the Constitutional guarantees and traditional exercise of freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof.
Directly attacking the existing jurisprudential twisting of the 1st Amendment plays to their strengths, whereas emphasizing the freedom of conscience undermines the sovietish “freedom from religion” jurisprudence.
It is unfortunate and bewildering to me that the case for freedom is usually presented as crudely and awkwardly as possible. As much as any factor, Reagan’s eloquence is what moved his agenda forward, and even persuaded people over to it. Expanding the base can be done on principles stated well, not merely by pandering.
no expert hat here, more of a question.
Of all those times both the house and Senate flipped, what was the most Senate seats?
It just seem like a lot to gain 8, 9, 10 or 11 in one cycle.
Looking at Sabato’s data, he’s just about right on both forecasts as of today. It is entirely possible that the wave on the Congressional side grows into the 70-80 range. I don’t think IL-10 is at risk for example.
On the Senate side, 8 is cautious and reasonable. A last minute shift can add WV and WA into the R column. CA is also in play and CT is a fringe reach. I could see the Senate going 51-49 either way at the end of the day.
Not entirely. But to end up with Christine O'Donnell as the Republican candidate .... yeah, conservatives should be doing some serious soul-searching look at their role in turning an almost sure R seat over to a weak Democrat.
If there was going to be a serious attempt to challenge Mike Castle in the primary, shouldn't they have done so by putting up a person who had a shot in hell of winning the general election?
Recent Sabato Tweets:
Many candidates are winning mainly because they have an R next to their name. Even on ‘Wheel of Fortune’, no letter is as valuable in ‘10.
3 minutes ago via web
See how little has changed since Crystal Ball was 1st to call House for GOP in August? (+47R then). Fundamentals rule.
about 2 hours ago via web
The Republicans gained 56 seats in the House and 13 in the Senate when they took control of both chambers in 1947.
The Democrats gained 97 House seats and 12 Senate seats when they took control of both chambers in 1933. (Republicans lost 101 in that Great Depression election that swept FDR into power).
The biggest Republican gain was a 120 seat gain in 1895. They added six Senate seats to control the chamber. (This shift was induced by the Panic of 1893).
**********************
What interested me was that despite a relatively modest Republican gain in the house, he projects what is pretty much an optimum figure for the xenate. Senators are hard to take down.
My personal prediction 6 weeks ago and today remains 80 and 8. 100 and 10 would delight me. We'll see.
Jim
Trust me, if I were still living in GA-5, I’d be voting for Little until the cows come home. I had to write in candidates in the past when Lewis was running unopposed.
However, with that said, you’re talking about a D +26 district that’s 63% minority, 37% white and has a sizeable gay and lesbian community. Lewis won the district 70-30 in the 1994 wave election and will win by at least 20 this year. It’s as blue as blue districts come in the country.
I think there are a couple of reasons for that.
First, we just tend to assume that everybody shares our basic philosophy, and plays by the same rules we do. And thus, to us, it's enough simply to point to a few words in the Constitution and that's enough to convince everybody else.
The problem is, if the other guy doesn't share our assumptions to begin with, the old "point and shout" mode of debate is not just ineffective, but actually counter-productive. It turns people off, and it makes us look stupid and narrow, which just makes it more difficult for us next time around. (Interestingly, this applies equally well where Scriptural discussions are concerned....)
Second, I think we conservatives don't really have a good handle on what we believe anymore, and we certainly haven't got a good way to present it convincingly to those who disagree with us.
We need to change that -- but, unfortunately, there's also a populist bent to the Tea Party movement that positively rejects "elitists," including those intellectuals (such as Buckley or Russell Kirk in the old days).
Those are the ones who have the background and means to do the necessary heavy lifting of explaining our principles within the context of the modern world and, more importantly, reconciling the various competing conservative ideas into a somewhat coherent platform -- and doing so in a way that makes sense to those (the majority of Americans, btw) who are not already convinced.
And finally ... we're impatient. We don't lay any groundwork, we just tend to wade in and say things that people are not prepared to hear. Of course they dismiss us.
GAs 5th is Black and Blue for sure. This optomist also understands the realism of our historical demographic challenges. However, things have changed here over past decade, all in Fenn’s favor. You will soon see.
I agree with all these points.
Good, clear summary.
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.