To: DWPittelli
Thank God the DemocRATS didn't follow Barbra Streisand's advice or today would not be a pretty picture for the Republican party and President Bush.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....snicker, chortle,
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
To: DWPittelli
Great post-I was wondering about this all day. Thanks.
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.
3 posted on
11/06/2002 9:30:46 AM PST by
MattinNJ
To: DWPittelli
2008 is pivotal - especially since Hillary has her eye on it. And frankly, when one looks at their talent bench, she's probably all they've got.
To: DWPittelli
2004? Higher turnout associated with a Presidential election will likely favor the Democrats nationwide.
8 posted on
11/06/2002 9:46:48 AM PST by
Coop
To: DWPittelli
Never underestimate the pubbies ability to shoot themselves in the foot. especially the losers in the senate
9 posted on
11/06/2002 9:47:46 AM PST by
wny
To: DWPittelli
Democrats would be VERY hard pressed to win the Senate in 2004. Here are some of their seats that could be challenged:
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.
11 posted on
11/06/2002 9:53:15 AM PST by
tellw
To: DWPittelli
It is important to know *which* seats in 2004.
I know one of them is Dashle's in SD... a Thune rematch if he doesnt win there?
What are the other places and races? Some may be competitive, others might not.
Any retirements expected? One of the problems for Republicans was the large number of retirements we had to go through this cycle. We triumphed in every one of them: NC, SC, TN, TX, ...
anyway, it is not just the raw numbers of seats up but an indication of which seats and where that counts.
13 posted on
11/06/2002 9:57:26 AM PST by
WOSG
To: DWPittelli
Does this sound familiar?
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.
To: DWPittelli
Hey, Rush must have read this thread. He's going over it now on his show!!
Way to go FReepers, always on the cutting edge!!
To: DWPittelli
The next real danger time for Republicans will be 2008 I like this scenario. Jeb Bush/Alan Keyes '08.
To: DWPittelli
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson