Posted on 04/16/2005 12:19:02 PM PDT by el_doctor2
Part of it is the fact that the GOP leadership is incompetent. A lot of it is due to the fact that the high-profile Republicans who have won in recent years (Racicot, Burns, Rehberg) concentrate only on their own elections, and not on building the party from the ground up.
Keep in mind that in the old bad old days when Anaconda Copper, Montana Power, and the labor unions ran the state, the Democrat party dominated. Unlike in SD, Democrats in Montana have a corporate memory of when they used to run things, and are willing to do what it takes to get elected. The trial lawyers pony up very big bucks for this, and they finally found a guy to bankroll (Schweitzer) who could figure out how to win the governor's race. Burns is just lucky that he's up this year and not in 2008, or the Schweitzer would run against him and win.
The GOP, by contrast, put up a milque-toast party regular against Schweitzer, and he got justifiably creamed. Rehburg is not in Schweitzer's league either, which means that if Baucus gives up his seat in 2008, Schweitzer will win it. Things don't look good in Montana.
The real failure was Marc Racicot's. He could have made the GOP into a permanent majority in that state, and he didn't have the character and will to make it happen. He really didn't even try. The national GOP needs to pay attention to states like these, as they did with the Daschle race in SD. Not so much money as shaking up the whole attitude toward grooming candidates and running campaigns.
Regarding ND, if Hoeven makes a run, he will lose, but will put a dent in the system there, and that needs to happen. The problem with the GOP in ND is that they have a history of not even trying.
SD's GOP was the same when it came to Daschle until 2004, when they realized that they were really going to look like schmucks to the national GOP if they didn't get their act together. You know, Daschle ran in a lot of races over his 30 years. Hreally only had 3 races in which the GOP put up a fight: his very first House race, his race for the at-large House seat when SD went from two Reps to one, and this very last Senate race. Every other race, including the one where he defeated a sitting GOP sitting US Senator (!) the GOP really didn't even have a strategy to beat him -- let alone try to implement it.
If things are going the way they are now in 2006, we could be in serious trouble. Heck, the Dems could regain the Senate then.
But, there is a lot of time left.
I hate to say it, but this article is entirely too optimistic. There is no way that Ted Kennedy will lose in Massachusetts. Unless Byrd does something stupider than he's done already (unlikely), Shelley Moore Capito will wait for him to die (and thus leave office) to run, and nobody else stands a chance in WV. Jim Jeffords isn't going anywhere either if he doesn't want to. I think New Jersey still has more dead Dem voters than live voters, so that one isn't likely either.
The truth is though that most of their vulnerable seats are in '06 and our vulnerable seats are in '08. If we don't get 60 in '06, I think it won't be until '10 to make it.
It is an old article and it's too optimistic, but the optimism is not entirely misplaced. Getting 58 R Senators is not out of the question and getting 56 is quite likely.
Huge differences. They don't mention retirements that are now sure things, they mention some potential matchups that are already not happening, etc.
2 months is an eternety in politics.
The GOP is playing 'safe'...what is the point of electing the GOP if they act like Democrats? If the GOP doesn't get it's act together, they will lose seats in the house and in the Senate because they ticked off the base enough that the base didn't come out and vote. Historically, the presidential party loses seats during a mid-term election. It is so sad that Republicans think they must cater to Democrats in order to remain in power because it is not true. Democrats will never vote for a Republican-not even McCain.
Well Burns already beat Schweitzer once didn't he, in a close reelection victory last time, right? Though of course that doesn't mean he would beat him again, but clearly Schweitzer, with all his money, is beatable.
What about Racicot's standing in the state now? Wouldn't he have a chance if he returned to take on Baucas in 3 yrs? And surely he'd have a good chance if the seat were left open by a Baucas retirement.
As to North Dakota: I can't really argue with you about the state of the GOP there because (a) I've never looked into who controls the state govt and (b) They clearly do have a problem with federal office seeing as how all three of their congressional delegation are Democrats.
But I agree that a Hoeven run would at least show effort, and if the national GOP puts in enough money who knows? Even if he doesn't win, maybe he'd do well enough like John Thune did in 2002 so as to give himself another shot in the future.
I brought up the overwhelming margin of the successful ballot measure to ban gay marriage and civil unions because it was one of the most lop-sided of all. It did better in ND than it did in Utah (though I have my suspicions as to why it didn't do better there) and the also-discussed Montana, and was right there with Southern states like Arkansas, Kentucky, and Georgia. When I see such a margin for a measure that doesn't stop with the nationally-opposed gay marriage, but also bans the allegedly 'moderate' civil unions, then it suggest that there is a strong current of social and cultural conservatism running through the state's electorate.
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.