Posted on 11/06/2002 9:23:56 AM PST by DWPittelli
The Republicans took back the Senate this year, which is good enough for them in and of itself. The fact that they did this mid-term of the first term of a Republican Presidency is even better. But what’s best of all for the Republicans is the fact that they did this while defending 20 Senate seats this year, while the Democrats were only defending 14 seats (counting Wellstone’s recently emptied seat). Republican success refutes the myth of this being a “50/50 nation” – Republicans would have lost a couple seats in a nation evenly divided between the parties.
But 2002’s Senate races have further meaning. Not only did they mean that Republicans could win this year while running up-hill, defending more seats, the following incumbency figures pretty much guarantee that Republicans will control the Senate for the next 6 years:
How’s that? In 2 years (2004), the Democrats will be defending 19 seats while the Republicans are defending only 15. Now, it’s not impossible that the Dems will pick up seats – since the Republicans did so this year it is possible. But it’s very difficult: the Dems won’t have any mid-term advantage, and could only win if Bush’s presidency is seen as a failure. At any rate, if Bush wins reelection (or even loses closely) he will have a safely Republican Senate. Similarly, in 2006, the Dems will be defending 17 seats – 18 if you count turncoat Jim Jeffords, as you should. And the Republicans will only be defending 14 seats. Again, the Republicans are likely to hold their position or even gain a seat if the country remains anywhere near evenly divided.
The next real danger time for Republicans will be 2008, when Republicans will likely have 22 seats up, while the Dems will have only 12 seats to defend – an even bigger gap than we had yesterday. Most likely the Republicans will give up a few seats. But they will already be up by several seats (and won’t likely have to worry about Lautenberg!) and can afford to lose a few. Control of the Senate will follow the Presidential election (unless the popular vote is within 2%).
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....snicker, chortle,
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Can someone please help me, my head is spinning. Not counting Louisiana (subject to a runoff),South Dakota (subject to a recount), and Minnesota (When does Coleman take that seat) what is the current makeup of the Senate? I can't seem to get an accurate count minus those three seats which I think we will all eventually pickup.
Just curious -- always willing to learn something new. I feel that we cannot let SD go like we did in MO 2000.
Senators who won "squeaker" races in 1998
Boxer (CA)
Reid (NV)
Lincoln (AR)
Edwards (NC)
Feingold (WI)
Senators who might retire in 2004
Hollings (SC)
Daschle (SD)
Inouye (HI)
Leahy (VT)
Miller (GA)
The Republican side is in much better shape, not just for the lower number of seats. Of the incumbents should they run again, I would only put Bond (MO), Bunning (KY), Fitzgerald (IL), and the Alaska seat into any kind of play. And given the newly won majority, I don't foresee many on the GOP side deciding to retire.
Assuming Bush gets re-elected and the house remains republican. With the repubs in total control for the last 6 years they will have no excuses. They will have to take credit for everything wrong with the country in 2008. They should also get credit for everything right with the country at that time. If the Republicans don't have the majority of the people happy in 2008, Hillary could actually end up president. This should be interesting to watch. Only my own amatuer opinion of course.
Gee, Mr. President. You've just wound up a successful war in Iraq and it looks like tbe best the Democrats can do is some no-name governor from Arkansas of all places. The 1992 election is in the bag."
Let's enjoy the moment but don't get cocky. A lot can happen between now and 2004 and, given our leadership in the House and Senate, much of that can be bad. Our work has just begun.
Jeb Bush's victory speech sounded more like a campaign speech to me last night, so I assume that he is considering a run for the presidency in 2008. He will be done as governor in 2006 and that will give him the time he needs to put together a good campaign. It also makes me wonder if Hillary won't run in 2004. I thought she would wait until 2008, which I think is the reason they wanted to knock Jeb out of the FL governorship so badly. She would be probably running against him. But now that the Clintons have failed so badly, they can't afford any more such dismal showings of their failed leadership, so she might have to jump for 2004. It will be interesting. So, hopefully, whether she runs in 2004 or 2008, she will be facing a Bush.
I would take out Bunning. There was an article a few weeks ago saying the democrats have no candidate to run against him. However I would add McCain (Az) and Campbell (CO) due to impending retirements. McCain's health is deteriorating and his presidential ambitions are shot. Campbell is reported to not be raising any money, something senators must constantly do to run effective campaigns.
Republican also have a shot at knocking off Schumer if Guiliani decides to run. Your also forgetting Bob Graham of Florida who is getting much older and will likely retire. Dittos for Barbara Mikulski, though Maryland is a tough state for republicans.
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.