02.13.09
Senate 2010: What’s the best path for Democrats?
It’s still pretty early for any really specific projections as to how certain races shake out, but I happen to be reading the Booman Tribune and I find an interesting post about how Democrats might be able to reach a magic 67 number (to override presidential vetos it requires 2/3 of both houses of congress, in the Senate’s case 67 is that number). In his post, Booman is trying to put himself in the shoes of DSCC chair Bob Menendez and attempting to find the best path to win the maximum number of seats. While I generally agree with Booman’s analysis (and I suggest reading the full post, it is very enlightening) I would like to point out a few areas where I disagree with his analysis and then offer my own suggestion for the path of least resistance (and give a bit of an :
North Dakota: Booman writes:
North Dakota: Byron Dorgan is very popular but he can’t be considered too safe in such a conservative state. This is a race that Menendez needs to be prepared to defend.
North Dakota’s political dynamics are interesting, yes the state has a tendency to vote Republican at the presidential level, but that tends to mask the fact that the Democrats have traditionally done well in the congressional races (in fact, since 1960, the Democrats have held at least one senate seat and since 1987 have held both). Frankly, the only thing Dorgan has to worry about is Governor Hoeven deciding to jump in, and even then it would appear that Dorgan has a commanding lead. Remember in neighboring South Dakota (which, politically speaking, shares a lot in common with it’s neighbor to the north) it took a perfect storm to unseat Democrat Tom Daschle (a top recruit, a presidential year, the fact that Daschle was so tied to the Democrats as Senate Leader, and a massive third-party effort by the NRSC).
New Hampshire: Booman writes:
New Hampshire: With Judd Gregg joining the Obama administration, this race will be open in 2010. I’d recruit Carol Shea-Porter because she’ll have an easier time winning statewide than Paul Hodes, but Hodes will make an excellent recruit, as well.
Before getting to my disagreement with this, I’m aware that Booman wrote this before Gregg’s “withdrawal” so this has nothing to do with Gregg’s decisions at the moment. Now with that being said, I think that Booman’s choice of candidate is based more on the fact that Shea-Porter represents a district that is less Democratic than Hodes’s, even granting that, the polling so far seems to actually give Hodes the edge (not only in the absolute numbers, but also in the fact that his name recognition seems to be lower, thus giving him more room for growth). Even if we were to presume that Shea-Porter is a stronger candidate than Hodes, since Hodes has already announced his intention to run for the senate seat, if Shea-Porter were to jump in now it would probably set the stage for an extremely divisive primary, so the best solution to the problem is to work with DCCC chair Chris van Hollen and convince her not to run.
Pennsylvania: Booman writes:
Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter says he is running again. I think Rep. Patrick Murphy would clean his clock. I would recruit him over other candidates.
I definitely agree that Murphy is the strongest candidate, but since Specter probably won’t face a credible primary challenge from the right this time (thus letting him keep in the good graces of Pennsylvania’s influential unions) it’s still probably an uphill battle.
Those nit-picks of mine aside, his list is decent, but I would probably go with something closer to what Nate Silver has, probably making North Carolina the bigger priority than Louisiana (Vitter’s diaper problems aside, Louisiana is probably one of the few states where you could get away with that). So this is my list on which seats are probably more likely to give us what we need:
1. New Hampshire
2. Missouri
3. Ohio
4. Kentucky
5. Florida
6. North Carolina
7. Pennsylvania
8. Kansas or Louisiana (depends on whether or not Sebelius runs in Kansas)
Then again, I don’t believe we’ll really be able to run the table this time around, in all likelihood a good year for us should let us keep all of our seats (Reid, Bennett of Colorado, and Burris are the weak links, but they’re saved by the fact that the Republicans have a weak crop of candidates in all three states) and pick up the open seats in Ohio, Missouri, and New Hampshire, plus knocking off Bunning. Even if we don’t have all that good a year in 2010, I’d still venture to guess that we’ll take the open seat in New Hampshire and should still be a slight favorite in Missouri even though we might lose one of Colorado, Nevada or Illinois (my guess would be Nevada, where Reid has abysmal numbers).
01.29.09
More on long-term strategy
When I originally wrote on long-term strategy and pointed to David Sirota’s argument as my example of a disagreement, I wasn’t trying to pick on him, nor was I trying to get into a fight with him, but it is becoming apparent to me that Sirota can’t deal with the fact that there are bloggers who disagree with him without devolving into insults:
What this blogger fails to realize is what I suggested earlier: That Democrats aren’t (like this blogger) frolicking with ponies in a psychedelic fantasyland. That is, they aren’t stupid to the point of lobotomization and they know that no matter how nice they are to Republicans, the GOP will never, ever ever support the Employee Free Choice Act. Indeed, that’s exactly what Republican leader Mitch McConnell has already said, in no uncertain terms[...]
Of course Mitch McConnell says that, he wouldn’t be doing his job as the Senate Leader if he didn’t say that, but that doesn’t mean that McConnell is some sort of god, nor does it mean that he can keep a unanimous caucus 100% of the time (McConnell hasn’t been able to keep a unanimous caucus for any of the votes so far, so what makes Sirota really think that McConnell could really force Arlen Specter to risk the wrath of the unions in Pennsylvania?)
What this whole thing boils down to is what Booman referred to the other day:
So, let us stipulate that David Sirota is correct to note that the Republicans will not be “cajoled with candy and niceties into supporting bills to help make union organizing easier.” However, we should be careful to consider other facts that are in the record. On June 26, 2007, the Senate voted 51-48 in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act (but they needed 60 votes to invoke cloture). Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican except Arlen Specter voted against it. Assuming that Specter votes for it again when it comes up in this Congress, and assuming that all the Democrats that voted for it in 2007 vote for it again, and assuming that all the newly elected/appointed Democrats vote for it, the Employee Free Choice Act will have the support of exactly the sixty votes required to pass.
So, when Mitch McConnell says that he is going to fight like hell to prevent passage of the union-friendly bill, what he really means is that he is going to do everything he can to pressure Arlen Specter to flip his vote, to prevent any other Republicans from wavering, and to apply some pressure on veteran Democrats to change their mind and freshmen Democrats to take his side.
And by the way, speaking of Booman, this is definitely something I’d keep in mind for later reference:
While I agree with Sirota when he argues that the Republicans will never support any legislation that makes it easier for unions to organize, I don’t agree that it doesn’t pay to play a little patty-cake with moderate Republicans. Invite ‘em to dinner. Give ‘em a cocktail. Make them a cabinet member. Whatever. At the end of the day you wind up with an administration that is inclusive of 80% of the electorate and a Senate that is nearly impervious to obstruction.
01.28.09
2010 Senate Race Ratings
I noticed that the fine people over at Swing State Project have posted an initial ranking of the 2010 Senate races, and with all the appointments finally made for the Democratic seats (is it just me, or are there some Democratic governors with really twisted senses of humor?) I figure that now is a good time to post an update to my initial ranking. As opposed to last time, this will be a bit more specific, labeling them in the more traditional categories of Toss-up, Leans, Likely, Dark-Horse, and Safe. Before getting to the rankings, this is my description of each category:
Safe: These races are not at all considered competitive nor do they have any real prospect for being considered competitive short of monumental scandal or divine intervention (something like Jesus returning to challenge Richard Shelby, or something like that).
Potential Darkhorse: These races are not competitive, but there is the potential for it becoming competitive in the future. This will usually apply to races with an incumbent, but open seats can also qualify depending on the circumstances.
Likely: These races are somewhat competitive, but one party has a strong advantage over the other.
Leans: These races are very competitive, with party having a clear, but not strong, advantage over the other.
Toss-up: These races are the most competitive, with neither party having any real advantage over the other (that doesn’t mean that one side might not have an advantage over the other, but these edges are largely superficial)
So with the rankings all aside, let’s look at the rankings:
Solid Democratic (6)
Democratic Potential Dark-Horse (10)
Likely Democratic (0)
N/A
Leans Democratic (1)
- Bennett (Colorado)
Toss-ups (4)
- Open Missouri (Bond)
- Open Florida (Martinez)
- Open Ohio (Voinovich)
- Bunning (Kentucky)
Leans Republican (4)
- Burr (North Carolina)
- Specter (Pennsylvania)
- Open Kansas (Brownback)
- Gregg (New Hampshire)
Likely Republican
N/A
Republican Potential Dark-Horse (3)
- Grassley (Iowa)
- Isakson (Georgia)
- Vitter (Louisiana)
Safe Republican (8)
- DeMint (South Carolina)
- McCain (Arizona)
- Shelby (Alabama)
- Bennett (Utah)
- Coburn (Oklahoma)
- Crapo (Idaho)
- Murkowski (Alaska)
- Thune (South Dakota)
01.27.09
Note to Liberals: Don’t forget the long-term strategy
I really do think that there are some liberals who really don’t have a solid understanding of long-term strategy. Take, for example, David Sirota of OpenLeft, who states:
Rachel [Maddow] and I discussed a question that I asked a few weeks ago: When it comes to the economic recovery package, how much should taxpayers have to pay for political aesthetics? As I noted back then, the Obama administration concedes to reporters that it could pass an economic recovery package right now, without making any policy concessions to Republicans, such as substituting more tax cuts for more infrastructure spending. And yet, Obama and Democrats are doing just that – making concessions to Republicans in hopes that a majority of Republicans will support the final bill. And so again, how many billions of dollars in inefficient tax cuts must taxpayers be forced to finance in order to help Obama attract extra Republican votes that he doesn’t actually need?
What’s so bad about this question even being on the table is that since I wrote my original post, Republicans themselves have publicly acknowledged that Democrats do not have to make any concessions to them in order to pass the bill.
Of course, Sirota’s point about the bail-out is true, in the sense that, yes, the Democrats could easily force through a bail-out without any real input from Republicans and still expect to get it through both the House and the Senate (I honestly don’t believe that McConnell would seriously try to block a stimulus bill) but that doesn’t really matter because, as Al Giordano (as usual) notes, this is about long-term electoral and legislative strategy:
The President doesn’t need their [Republicans'] votes on the Stimulus (therefore, this maneuver is not about the Stimulus, but more akin to a football team calling a running play to set up a later passing play). The truth is that so many Congressional Democrats are so undependable that Obama will need some Republican votes later on other legislative priorities, particularly in the Senate in order to get 60 votes for “cloture” to allow bills to be voted up or down: On the Employee’s Free Choice Act, on Immigration Reform (and now he needs one more to offset the anti-immigrant junior Democratic Senator from New York), on children’s health care and much, much more. To get to that point, he has to make individual Republicans feel vulnerable at the ballot box to Democratic challenge. Today’s events are speeding that process up.
To give a practical example of Al’s point, if Blanche Lincoln, whose home state politics are dominated by Wal-Mart, decides to oppose the EFCA, would forcing the stimulus bill through the congress with no absolutely no attempt to negotiate with the Republicans really make Republican senators like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Spector more likely to support EFCA? Probably not.
Another point, raised by Booman over at the Booman Tribune (a must read), is this idea that individual Republican senators, in order to be able to have any say in governing, must be willing to compromise in committees. To take this point a step further (and to relate it back to what Al said) if the Democrats don’t show any inclination towards getting input from Republicans on these issues, why exactly should the Republicans make any concessions on other issues which will require bipartisan support for passage (like health-care or immigration reform)? Think back to the elections, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain both were making decisions almost uniformly based on short-term considerations, while it was Obama who was thinking long-term in his strategy, and guess who became president?
UPDATE: It would appear that David Sirota is throwing a temper tantrum because I happen to disagree with him:
Al Giordano and Election Inspection make arguably the most ignorant, least informed, stupendously idiotic assertion that Obama is trying to negotiate with Republicans on the economic recovery package in the belief that if he plays his cards right now, they will cooperate with Democrats when Democrats push more contentious bills like the Employee Free Choice Act.
Now, look – I think Obama is making a big mistake not by rhetorically reaching out to Republicans, but by legislatively negotiating with them on a stimulus bill where their legislative complicity isn’t necessary. However, Barack Obama is a lot of things – but one of them is not stupid to the point of braindead. He is definitely not stupid enough to believe – as Giordino(sp) and Election Inspection apparently do themselves, and as they believe Obama does himself – that being nice to Republicans on the stimulus bill or outmaneuvering him on the bill will make them more likely to later vote for something like the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that the entire corporate community has sworn to stop at all costs.
Ignoring this bizarre claim that the Republicans are outmanuevering Obama on this (which Al has already thoroughly debunked) Sirota seems to be taking strategic cues from the Republicans, basically that Democrats need to shove through whatever they can and to hell with whatever the other guys want. Of course, we all know what happened to the Republicans after they did that, don’t we?
01.22.09
NY Senate: Blue Dog Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Clinton
So says local WB news affiliate WPIX-11.
PIX11 News has learned Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand is the choice of Governor David Paterson to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. Two Congressional sources tell PIX News that the Governor will make his announcement in Albany at noon tomorrow. He has invited members of the state’s Democratic Congressional delegation to join him.
Ugh, what a disaster. Rep. Gillibrand (D, NY-20) is pretty much the most conservative Democrat in the state’s delegation (with the possible exception of the newly-elected Mike McMahon in NY-13, Staten Island). Here’s what the Village Voice has to say about the matter:
Gillibrand has described her own voting record as “one of the most conservative in the state.” She opposes any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, supports renewing the Bush tax cuts for individuals earning up to $1 million annually, and voted for the Bush-backed FISA bill that permits wiretapping of international calls. She was one of four Democratic freshmen in the country, and the only Democrat in the New York delegation, to vote for the Bush administration’s bill to extend funding for the Iraq war shortly after she entered congress in 2007.
Yeccch. She also voted against the bailout bill, which is not a very smart move in a state that’s home to Wall Street. Say what you will about the bailout, but that is going to cost her dearly on Long Island (where the two most populous “swing” counties in the state are).
I hope Gov. Paterson chooses Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) instead, a much more progressive candidate who is far more in line with Secretary Clinton’s values.
Update: The other progressive Carolyn M. in the state delegation, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, already pre-emptively threatened a primary challenge in 2010.
12.06.08
Live results Louisianalicious
Things go ill in Louisiana tonight at this time.
As of this moment with nearly 100 precincts to go, Anh Cao is beating Dollar Bill jefferson 53% 43%. I’ll let you debate whether that is good or bad.
Fleming has just taken the lead in Lousiana 4 over Paul Carmouche by less than 400 votes. with all precincts reporting.
AP calls the race in LA 2 for Cao. Dollar Bill Jefferson loses. Carmouche goes to a recount will the stain of Jefferson is washed away, atleast we have to the celebrate, even if the Republicans did take the seat.
12.04.08
Republicans looking to defeat McCain in Arizona
John McCain, fresh off his loss of the 2008 presidential race was looking forward to going home, resting and recuperating with a nice easy senate race ahead of him. But it appears all is not well in Arizona for McCain and things may not turn out all that easy for him.
There has bee na lot of speculation that Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano may get involved in the Senate race here in the state but that specualtion has begun to die down with word that she will be in President-elect Obama’s cabinet. It was then assumed that Democrats would not be able to mount a credible challenge to McCain, but it may not be McCain we have to face.
It appears that some Republicans, even some in the power structure of the state party, want John McCain to go away. They are advocating for a primary challenge and it is possible that not only could they get that challenge, but that the challenge may come from a big name. According to the national review, Former Congressman and current conservative talk radio show host J.D. Hayworth is getting some pressure put on him to run in the race. Rob Haney, the former district 11 chairman has been putting the pressure on and Hayworth has apparently been getting calls into his show urging him to run.
I personally could not envision a better scenario as I think Hayworth would be much easier to defeat than McCain and that even a Jim Pederson type of candidate could win in this case. If you live in the state of Arizona, you should really consider calling in to Hayworth’s radio show and tell him all abouthow he should run for the senate against McCain. With a little luck, the Club for Growth will help him out and give us a chance to win in 2 states instead of one.
11.28.08
Chris Matthews to run for Senate?
So says Sean Quinn. Can’t say that I’m particularly surprised, this rumor has been swirling around for some time now, but the question for me is, will Matthews stay in if a Democratic heavyweight like Ed Rendell decides to run for the seat? So long as Specter decides to run for re-election, there is no reason to believe that Rendell will even run, but if he decides to retire, there is a good probability that he would try to take the seat. Rendell probably has presidential ambitions, and while he will retire as a pretty popular incumbent, his first real chance of running for president probably won’t come until 2016. To keep his name recognition up, he needs to still be in office, and it’s easier to keep it up as a current senator than a former governor.
For the record, I’m not fond of Chris Matthews, he’s a blow-hard who talks as though regular Americans are all white, middle-aged men without any college education.
11.19.08
Absurdly Early Senate Rankings for 2010
Here are my own Senate rankings. A wave election would be defined as 1994 for Republicans or 2006/2008 for the Democrats. My base assumption is barring a recruiting coup every incumbent except perhaps Gregg is favored. That assumes all things being equal and things never are.
Democrats
Safe barring scandal.
Leahy (Vermont)
Schumer (New York)
Dodd (Connecticut)
Mikulski (Maryland)
Open Illinois (Subject to change depending on replacement choice)
Vulnerable in a wave year.
Bayh (Indiana)
Wyden (Oregon)
Vulnerable depending on opponent.
Dorgan (North Dakota) (If Hoeven runs, vulnerable)
Boxer (California) (If Governator runs, vulnerable)
Inouye (Hawaii) (If Inouye retires AND Lingle runs, vulnerable)
Delaware (If Castle runs, competitive)
Lincoln (Arkansas) (If Hucksters runs competitive, weak Republican bench otherwise)
Potentially vulnerable, particularly if 2010 is a Republican Year.
Salazar (Colorado)
Feingold (Wisconsin)
Murray (Washington)
Reid (Nevada)
Explanations.
Vermont – Leahy is safe and a good bet to run. If he retired Douglas would be formidible. Highly unlikely to be in play.
New York – Schumer – Schumer is safe. Only plausible scenario for a competitive race would be Schumer not running and Guiliani running against a weak Democrat. Highly unlikely to be in play.
Connecticut – Dodd is safe and a good bet to run. If Dodd were to retire, Rell or one of the three ex-Repub congresspeople could make it a race. Highly unlikely to be in play.
Maryland – Mikulski or a generic Democrat should win easily. A very weak Democrat and a very strong Republican in a wave year would make it competitive. But again an unlikely scenario.
Illinois – Generic Democrat easily beats generic Republican. Subject to change depending on who gets appointed.
Indiana – Bayh is popular but this is Indiana and given Mitch Daniel’s strong victory there is no reason to believe Obama’s win changes the Republican advantage in the state. Bayh should win easily and by a large margin. But if there is a wave he could be swept out like his dad was. A Senator who was equally as popular and well regarded.
Oregeon – Wyden – Oregon has gone consistently Democratic the last few elections but it is a rather divided state with a very conservative east outweighed by a more moderate west. In a wave year Republicans can win especially if they nominate a moderate. However it’s liberal enough and Wyden is entrenched enough it would have to be a wave rather than simply a Republican year.
North Dakota – Dorgan is a popular Senator but Gov. Hoeven could give him a strong run. This being North Dakota like Bayh he could be vulnerable in a Republican wave year. Even then the Republicans have a weak bench and only mustered 42% against the equally popular Kent Conrad in 1994.
California – While a liberal favorite Boxer not as popular as Diane Feinstein. The Governator would present a strong challenge against her. Otherwise in a normal (or even Republican) year should be favored. Could be vulnerable in a wave election depending on who the Republicans nominate.
Inouye – Inouye would win re-election in any environment but given his age might not run. If he were to retire and Linda Lingle were to run she’d be a tough opponent but her chances would depend on the partisan environment. If she doesn’t it is probably an easy Democratic win in almost any environment.
Delaware – Mike Castle is about the only Republican who can make this a race. Given his age and how safely entrenched he is in his seat it’s tough seeing him taking a risk at running. Otherwise seat is probably non-competitive.
Arkansas – Blanche Lincoln is popular attractive candidate and Arkansas is a state with a weak Republican bench. Huckabee would be the sole exception and could give her a run if it’s a Republican year. She survived the last Republican wave as a congresswomen in 1994 with 53% of the vote. Barring the Huckster getting in and given the weakness of the Republican Party in Arkansas she probably could withstand another wave election.
Colorado – Salazar – Colorado has gone decidedly Democratic the last two cycles but had been going consistently even if sometimes narrowly for the Republicans before that. If it’s a Republican year being a first term senator Salazar could be vulnerable. Particularly if he faces a strong primary challenge from the left. Head to head polling over the summer had him nearly tied with former Governor Bill Owens (44 to 41).
Washington – Same thing I said for Oregon goes for Washington. Except Murray being less popular than Wyden could be vulnerable in a merely strongly Republican year rather than a Republican wave.
Wisconsin – Feingold’s maverick approach to fund-raising made him vulnerable in 1998. Taking a more orthodox approach he won by a larger margin against a more lackluster opponent. 1998 was a good Democratic year nationally. 2004 was more of a wash with Wisconsin narrowly going for Kerry. In a decidedly Republican year he could be vulnerable. Look out for Tommy Thompson. His failed run for President in 2008 could indicate a desire to return to elective politics and he could be a tough opponent.
Nevada – Senator Reid’s popularity in Nevada has declined since he became Majority leader. Rather than a moderate he is seen as the partisan leader of the Democratic Party. Elections in Nevada also tend to be notoriously close. In a Republican year he could be vulnerable.
Republicans.
Safe barring scandal.
Crapo (Idaho)
Bennett (Utah)
Shelby (Alabama)
Coburn (Oklahoma)
Grassley (Iowa)
DeMint (South Carolina)
Murkowski (Alaska)
Vulnerable in a wave year.
Isakson (Georgia)
Vulnerable depending on opponent.
McCain (Arizona) – If Napolitano runs.
Open Kansas – If Sebilius runs.
Thune (South Dakota) – If Thune runs against Herseth or Daschle would be competive
Specter (Pennsylvania) – If Rendell runs.
Bunning (Kentucky) – If Democrats step up to the plate.
Potentially vulnerable, particularly if 2010 is a Democratic Year.
Burr (North Carolina)
Gregg (New Hampshire)
Voinovich (Ohio)
Bond (Missouri)
Vitter (Louisiana)
Martinez (Florida)
Explanations
Idaho – It’s Idaho and Crapo as far as we know doesn’t have a wide stance. In 2004 Crapo won with 99 percent of the vote.
Utah – Would require the reanimated corpse of Brigham Young to even be considered in play.
Alabama – Shelby – Safe. Would require a Shelby retirement AND a strong Democratic year to be in play.
Oklahoma – Coburn is far more popular than Inhofe. If Brad Henry were to run it would still be a long shot but at least Coburn would have to work and we’d be well positioned in case some scandal arose.
Iowa – Grassley. I was unsure whether to put him in safe or vulnerable in a wave year. But Grassley just fits the state of Iowa. While conservative he isn’t an ideologue and is respected as someone who fights hard for his state no matter who he offends. There is one scenario where this seat could come into play. If the Club for Growth decides to target him and either defeats him in a primary or savages him hard enough to give the Democrats a chance in the general.
South Carolina – While DeMint is more conservative than Lindsay Graham it doesn’t mean he isn’t more popular. This is South Carolina and Graham was actually hurt by not being crazy enough.
Alaska – Stevens was found guilty of basically being bribed and he almost won. Lisa Murkowski after winning in her own right isn’t as tainted by charges of nepotism as last time around. Her weakness in the polls last time was partly due to her perceived moderation and by election day all the wingnuts were back on board. It is possible she could face a primary again by the right wing of her party.
Georgia – Isakson is more popular than Chambliss who is well.. Saxby Chambliss. However if it’s a wave election and if the Democrats found a strong candidate it could be possible. That said the chances of a THIRD wave Democratic election are small.
Arizona – If Napolitano enters she can make a good run at McCain. If McCain doesn’t run (despite his early announcement) a number of Democrats could make a play for the seat with Napolitano being the strongest possible contender.
New Hampshire – Gregg is popular and well regarded in New Hampshire. So was John Sununu and that has to scare Gregg. Lynch would give him a strong run. But given how the state has tilted Democratic a number of others in a good year might be able to take him on. Let’s just hope none of them have the name “Swett.”
Open Kansas – If Sebelius runs it could be a race. But even then it would be close. Like Alaska don’t be deceived by good early poll numbers. Jill Docking in 1996 did well against Brownback in early polls. She lost 54 to 43. If Sebelius doesn’t run it’s game over.
South Dakota – Thune won by a whisker against Tom Daschle and deprived the Democratic Party of one of it’s top tacticians in the Senate. Since then he’s built his profile and popularity in South Dakota and will be tough to beat. Herseth might actually be a stronger candidate than Daschle against Thune but would also put an otherwise safe House seat in play. Daschle also might be reluctant to leave his new post in the Obama cabinet so soon after his appointment. Thune is rumored to be interested in running for Governor which would make the seat very tempting for either Daschle or Herseth or Republican Governor Mike Rounds who would be no less difficult than Thune.
Pennsylvania – Specter – If Ed Rendell runs he might be able to take Specter out on his own. Otherwise we’d either need a strong democratic year or an assist from the Club for Growth. However at his age a retirement can’t be ruled out and we should be favored in this blue tilting state unless Tom Ridge gets in. In which case we’ll need our heavyweight Ed Rendell.
Kentucky – Bunning – I should just put him in the vulnerable category. And it has been rumored Chandler who would be a great candidate is interested. However after everyone ducking a race we should’ve and could’ve won against McConnell I’ll believe the Democrats are ready to get in the game when they actually step up to the plate. Assuming we get our a-listers to run this should be a pickup. While not as Democratic as West Virginia like Arkansas it is far more fertile Democratic territory than you’d suspect just looking at the Presidential numbers.
North Carolina – This is the cursed seat no one ever wins re-election to and North Carolina has been trending in the Democrat’s direction. We’ll still need a strong candidate like Easley, Shuler or Miller to take it. Especially if the wind is blowing against the Democrats nationally.
Ohio – Voinovich is a strange figure and difficult to read. Case in point his bizarre performance when he changed his mind and helped nuke John Bolton. He’s still well regarded and we’d probably need a good Democratic year to beat him. However it is rumored he is seriously contemplating retirement.
Missouri – Bond is always vulnerable and always seems to hang in there despite being a fairly anonymous unaccomplished Senator. With a good candidate and a good year his luck could change. Or maybe not.
Louisiana – Who the hell knows? It’s Louisiana where anything and everything is possible. Don Cazayoux is rumored to be running and he’d be a great choice. Particularly since Cajuns are the swing vote in Louisiana and it is almost a necessity for any Democratic nominee to be Cajun. There is a chance Vitter could be dragged down the same way Tim Hutchinson was in Arkansas over his infidelities. On the other hand Louisiana can be more forgiving than other states. And to add a little color courtesy of DailyKingfish Rodney Alexander the turncoat Democrat who decided to re-file as a Republican a few minutes before the filing deadline in 2004 is thinking about running. Except he isn’t sure whether he wants to run as a Democrat or a Republican. At this point probably both parties are begging him to run for the OTHER team.
Florida – Martinez is less than popular in Florida but does have certain advantages. Obama won the state of Florida by a small margin while doing strongly among the Cuban community. Martinez should have no problem getting South Florida Cubans. However a number of Democrats could give him a good run given his dismal numbers.
Appendum
As a final note to everyone who is ready to form a traditional old-fashion Democratic circular firing squad over who Obama is considering appointing to his cabinet or over Lieberman retaining his commiteee chair. Relax and let Obama take office and try to enact his policies. The video below aptly applies to the past eight years. It has been “Winter in America.” Let’s be patient and wait for spring aka inaugration day to come.
