| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: GOP dread: Dems could hit 60 Senate seats |
 |
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081004/pl_politico/14280 for full article.
| Quote: |
The possibility that Democrats will build a muscular, 60-seat Senate majority is looking increasing plausible, with new polls showing a powerful surge for the party�s candidates in Minnesota, Kentucky and other states.
A poll out Friday shows Sen. Norm Coleman could now easily lose his Minnesota seat to comedian-turned-candidate Al Franken. A Colorado race that initially looked like a nail-biter has now broken decisively for the Democrats. A top official in the McCain camp told us Sen. Elizabeth Dole is virtually certain to lose in conservative North Carolina.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has seen his race tighten dangerously close over the past week � and Democrats are considering moving more money into the state very soon. And there is even talk that Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss is beatable in conservative Georgia after backing the economic bailout package opposed by many voters.
�Before the economic crisis, we had a number of races moving our way,� said Matthew Miller, communications director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. �But now we�re seeing Republican numbers plummet.� GOP officials largely agree.
Senate races don�t grab national attention like the White House battle does. But if these trends hold, the Senate outcome could be almost as important to Washington governance as the presidential winner will be. It takes 60 votes to pass anything through the slow-moving Senate. So the closer the Democrats get to the number, the more power they will have next year to put their stamp on the country.
Democrats say their candidates are benefiting from the wipeout on Wall Street with a single message in every region of the country: �These are the Bush policies coming home to roost.� Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told Politico: �Americans know that in economically difficult times, we need a change from George Bush�s policies. And incumbents who have voted for six years with Bush, up and down the line, are having a difficult time trying to convince the electorate that they�ve changed their spots."
The trends reflect the growing fear of among top Republicans that their prospects could crater on Nov. 4, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) running weakly at the top of the ticket, President Bush as unpopular as ever and the economic crisis serving as a last-minute propellant for the change message of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
With Republicans fearing the loss of 17 to 21 House seats, January 2009 could bring Democrats a dominance over Washington that neither party has experienced since the Reagan years.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Democrats won the White House and had Congress in 1992. This seems related to the Newt Gingrich-led Republican backlash that followed in 1994. This forced, among other things, B. Clinton to move towards the center, declaring "big govt is over." Might also have paved the way for W. Bush's victory in 2000.
The Republicans seem to be experiencing the converse, since 2006.
Be careful what you wish for, then. You should be hoping for a somewhat balanced complexion in Washington. Why? That way each party remains deprived of turning the entire country against the other at any given moment -- especially plausible should economic trends continue going as they are following January 2009.
People think short-term, violently resist seeing long-term, and most Democrats have "vengeance" in their hearts above all else this year. C'est la vie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 55 Senate Dems is most likely. 60 Senate Dems is highly unlikely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So long sad times
Go long bad times
We are rid of you at last
Howdy gay times
Cloudy gray times
You are now a thing of the past
Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again
With Obama in the White House, Democrats are going to be held responsible for what happens after Jan 20, so it's better if they have the power to enact whatever plans they come up with. With greater power comes greater responsibility.
Bush had a majority in Congress until Jan 2007 and the public is holding them responsible. It's fair. It's especially fair since accountability was part of their philosophy.
Should a major Democratic majority come to pass, it will be interesting to see if Obama keeps to his bipartisan line. Partisanship will never go away entirely, but this last decade has been excessively divisive and nasty. Power is seductive and all presidents over-reach. We'll see come Jan 20. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Cubs' latest flameout has to be among the most galling, considering they fell flat against the Dodgers after their best regular season since 1945.
Sometimes baseball presages politics...Sometimes it doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| 55 Senate Dems is most likely. 60 Senate Dems is highly unlikely. |
I agree, 60 seems unlikely. 55-56 is possible depending upon key races including one in Oregon. Gordon Smith is trying really hard to hide from his record, but it's not working out too well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aka Dave
Joined: 02 May 2008
Location: Down by the river
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Please don't post spoilers in non-topic threads!!!!
I'm watching the Dodgers Cubs right now on mlb. com. This long time Dodger fan is ecstatic.
The fact is, with Furcal and Manny, the Dodgers are a different team.
On topic, I think 60 seats is in the realm of possibility if Obama can seal the deal and get some coattails. McCain is going to go hugely negative. That will either be very effective or massively backfire. So he's playing Russian Roulette and the whole election will depend on how McCain negativity plays out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| �These are the Bush policies coming home to roost.� |
THAT'S the killer message. It may not be productive or forward-looking but it resonates. When things go bad, votes go to the opposition. The Republican effort to paint its candidate McCain as offering something different from Bush is not only paddling against the tide but is doing so without a paddle (specific policy differences from the Bush administration).
This is the defining political undercurrent in the election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TexasPete
Joined: 24 May 2006
Location: Koreatown
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
The Democrats won the White House and had Congress in 1992. This seems related to the Newt Gingrich-led Republican backlash that followed in 1994. This forced, among other things, B. Clinton to move towards the center, declaring "big govt is over." Might also have paved the way for W. Bush's victory in 2000.
The Republicans seem to be experiencing the converse, since 2006.
Be careful what you wish for, then. You should be hoping for a somewhat balanced complexion in Washington. Why? That way each party remains deprived of turning the entire country against the other at any given moment -- especially plausible should economic trends continue going as they are following January 2009.
People think short-term, violently resist seeing long-term, and most Democrats have "vengeance" in their hearts above all else this year. C'est la vie. |
For once i actually agree with you. If it's too easy to get things passed, then it's also too easy for the worst of a party's ideas to get through the legislative process (ie what happened during 6 of the past 8 years). There needs to be some sort of parity in the political process to check recklessness on the part of the other party.
The problem with the Dems as the counter-weight is that they had no spine and caved to Bush time and time again. I want the Dems to have a majority come next year, but not a super-majority. They should still have to work to get things passed and there should be no blank checks or givens in the political process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, 538.com is showing the NC Senate race between Dole (R) and Hagan (D) has swung in Hagan's (narrow) favor.
The same site now has Democrat chances at getting 57 seats at over 50%. 60 seats remains possible but still fairly unlikely at only 20%. So it seems maybe the GOP should be feeling some dread.
What amazes me is that Lunsford (D) here in KY has a chance in hell. Its too bad that Lunsford is extremely unappealing personally. But ever since Senate Minority leader McConnell voted for the bailout, I may actually vote for Lunsford. Before I was just going to throw my vote away to third-party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Lunsford is extremely unappealing personally. |
I wondered if you meant 'ugly' so I googled up his Wiki page. Nope, not ugly. And the little girl in the blue dress is kinda cute as far as kids go. So I kept searching...
I figure this is what you find unappealing: "Long after the primary, Lunsford endorsed Republican candidate Ernie Fletcher. After Fletcher won the election, Lunsford served on Ernie Fletcher's transition team. Lunsford has contributed thousands of dollars to both Democrats and Republicans over a period of twenty years."
I find that unappealing, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
