How important is 2006 for the Dems

[[censored]]

I was doing some reading which was looking at the 2006 elections and it looks like the Democrates could be looking at another tough outcome. How important is it for the Democratic party to atleast hold even and stem the recent trend of losses? Very? Not at all?

[Dynasty]

The next election is always the most important one.

The Democrats did well in the Senate in 2000. But, most of their key victories were naroo. So, I'm assuming they have difficult turf to defend in 2006.

[vulturesrow]

Well obviously any more erosion of the Democrats in the Senat should be very concerning for their party. Usually the President's party doesnt do well in the election in the middle of his term, but the Republicans didnt have this problem in 2002. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I was doing some reading which was looking at the 2006 elections and it looks like the Democrates could be looking at another tough outcome. How important is it for the Democratic party to atleast hold even and stem the recent trend of losses? Very? Not at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very...the most important things is for the dems to come up with some solid leaders and good ideas to deal with problems. The democrats core constituencies aren't going anywhere.

[DVaut1]

It's probably a little early to start speculating about House races in '06.

The Senate is easier to predict. Fund raising starts now (actually, for some, a long time ago) and the targets on each side must be picked early; there are some seats that already jump out as being highly competitive:

Minnesota - Mark Dayton (D) is retiring, and Minnesota's state level elections in recent history have produced a mix of progressivism (see Paul Wellstone), populism (see Jesse Ventura), and conservatism (see Norm Coleman) - not to mention growing Green/Environmentalist movements and an energized, evangelical Christian community (Lutherans make up %40 of Minnesota's population, although certainly these are not all conservative voters). Minnesota's weird. Good luck predicting this one.

Washington - Maria Cantwell (D) squeaked out victory in 2000, but continues to be plagued by accusations of campaign finance scandals (her campaign is still $2 million in debt). This will be a competitive seat if/when a credible Republican announces his/her candidacy.

New York - Hillary Clinton (D) would probably be considered vulnerable, but all of the heavy-hitting Republicans in the state (Giuliani, Pitaki) likely don't want risk battle before their real wars begin in '08 for the presidential nomination. Clinton's war chest (estimated at $6 million) and fund raising ability will scare off some, but expect a strong challenger anyway, because there will be pressure on the RNC to begin gearing up their attacks on Clinton before '08. If Pitaki or Giuliani decides to throw their hat in the race, expect a real dog fight; even if they don't, expect a real dog fight. Presidential/National politics will dominate this race more than anything local, IMO.

Michigan - Debbie Stabenow (D) is likely vulnerable as well, but none of the prominent Michigan republicans (Candice Miller, Mike Rogers, etc.) seem overly willing to run. She'll have a strong challenger, though, and as this state is closely divided between Republicans and Democrats on the state level, I'd expect a close race. I live here in Michigan, and although I only have anecdotal evidence, no one seems to feel strongly about Stabenow one way or the other. Our other senator (Carl Levin) seems to win most of the hatred of the right/adoration of the left.

Nebraska - Ben Nelson (D) is a former governor, moderate, and is very popular; he also represents one of the most conservative states in the country (Bush beat Kerry by 33%here). Expect a strong Republican challenger and a close race.

Florida - Bill Nelson (D) will likely face Katherine Harris. There was some speculation Nelson might retire as well. Regardless, I think we're all aware of how closely contested Florida is. Close race.

Seats Currently Held By Republicans Which Will Likely Be Closely Contested

Virginia - George Allen (R) will likely win unless Mark Warner decides to run, in which case it would be very close; both have their eye on the White House in '08, though, so it seems unlikely this match up will happen.

Rhode Island Lincoln Chaffee (R), I think we can all agree, is a RINO (Republican In Name Only); this was formerly a good thing politically for Chaffee, as Rhode Island is heavily Democratic (Kerry beat Bush here by 21%). However, conservatives nationally are annoyed by Chaffee's rejection of the national party (Chaffee claimed he didn't vote for George W. Bush, but instead wrote in his father, George H.W. Bush on his 2004 Presidential ballot). Liberals nationally are annoyed with Chaffee, mostly because he continues to run as a Republican and will target him if he doesn't switch parties (which it appears he won't, although Dems. have made appeals for him to change). Republicans are in a bind; some see the wisdom of keeping Chaffee right where he is, as any Republican senator in heavily-Democratic Rhode Island is a blessing. However, his non-support of the national party has caused other Republicans to withdraw support for him, even if it means losing the seat. He'll face a primary challenger, and, if he survives that, a strong Democratic challenger. Of all the contested seats, this one seems most likely to change hands from one party to another, as any credible Democrat can probably beat a politically weak Chaffee, or a more conservative opponent if Chaffee should lose in the primary.

Chaffee's story is pretty indicative of why there are very moderates left, IMO.

Ohio - Mike DeWine (R) is another moderate Republican who annoys powerful conservative activists, but less so than Chaffee. There was also a sex scandal that involved some of his staff. If he gets a strong Democratic challenger, this could be competitive.

Tennessee - Bill Frist (R) is retiring and is likely running for President. Harold Ford (D) is seeking the nomination from the Democrats, and is young, moderate, popular, and has name recognition in the state. It's a relatively conservative state, though, so I suspect it will be a close race.

Pennsylvania - Rick Santorum (R) is wildly popular among his base, and roundly scorned by Democrats. He'll get a strong challenger and the DNC will put lots of money here to try to unseat Santorum, and this race will be watched closely for its national implications, along with the implications for Santorum and his possible presidential run. Expect a battle.

Maine - Olympia Snowe [R] is another Republican who annoys her fellow Republicans; but she is popular in Maine and will win if she runs. I've read she 1) has a medical condition and 2) hasn't started raising money, all of which leads me to think she might be retiring. If she does, this seat could change, as Maine is closely divided politically - although any Republican would likely be quite moderate, in the mold of Snowe and fellow Maine senator Susan Collins.

Missouri - Some Democrats think current senator Jim Talent (R) is weak, as he barely beat Jean Carnahan in a special election in 2002. I don't; he'll likely win but if the Democrats run a strong candidate and put a lot of money here, it could become competitive.


Those are all of the competitive seats, as I see it right now. Although there are some other senators retiring/seeking other jobs (Corzine, Sarbanes, Jeffords), these seats won't likely change party hands. Jeffords (an Independent after abandoning the Republican Party in 2002), however, is interesting; he's retiring and his seat will likely be contested by another Independent, Vermont's Representative-at-large Bernie Sanders; if the Democrats decided to oppose Saunders, it could be a competitive race. Saunders is self-declared socialist, but is also one of the more vocal critics of the Democratic Party. A Republican could be victorious if he/she could navigate the mine field between Sanders and another Democratic opponent, which might split the votes of Democrats/liberals.

The conclusion to take from this is that Republicans will have a very difficult time winning enough open seats/defeating Democratic senators/defending their own candidates to get to the magical number of 60 in the Senate (the number needed to prevent filibusters). And it seems equally difficult for Democrats to win enough races to win back the Senate. I suspect that, after 2006, the political climate of the Senate will be similar to its current state; the most vulnerable Senators are largely the most moderate (see Chaffee for the Republicans, Bill and Ben Nelson for the Democrats). If 2006 changes anything, it probably won't be the political makeup of the Senate, but I suspect it will have an even higher level of partisanship, as moderates are becoming increasingly alienated.

I’d be interested in what others think of the implications of 2006, though.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
New York - Hillary Clinton (D) would probably be considered vulnerable, but all of the heavy-hitting Republicans in the state (Giuliani, Pitaki) likely don't want risk battle before their real wars begin in '08 for the presidential nomination. Clinton's war chest (estimated at $6 million) and fund raising ability will scare off some, but expect a strong challenger anyway, because there will be pressure on the RNC to begin gearing up their attacks on Clinton before '08. If Pitaki or Giuliani decides to throw their hat in the race, expect a real dog fight; even if they don't, expect a real dog fight. Presidential/National politics will dominate this race more than anything local, IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't comment on races that you know absolutely nothing about, specifically the Senate race in New York.

I live here, and all of the polls show Hillary crushing(and I do mean crushing, like by more than 15) Pataki in a head to head matchup. Not that I don't love you relying on Faux.

I know that you fancy yourself as some kinda amateur political scientist, but please- don't.

This quote below proves that you have no clue what you are talking about:

[ QUOTE ]
expect a real dog fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

RIIIGHT. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2 million, and where Pataki has a 42% approval rating? Schumer beat his Republican opponent by more than 40 last November.

You're making me laugh.

Pataki and Giuliani won't run, and the Republicans will nominate a super-conservative freak as their canddiate. They'll pick some no-name nutjob to be their candidate, and Hillary will crush him.

She'll win at least 60% of the vote, guaranteed.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't comment on races that you know absolutely nothing about, specifically the Senate race in New York.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll comment on what I please.

[ QUOTE ]
I live here

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that makes you an expert?

[ QUOTE ]
and all of the polls show Hillary crushing(and I do mean crushing, like by more than 15) Pataki in a head to head matchup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt polls show Clinton ahead of Pitaki in a hypothetical match up, which I agree will likely not occur. It's also a year and a half before a single vote will be cast. Who has more cache among Republicans, Pitaki or Rick Lazio? What did Clinton win by in 2000? 11 percentage points, or 800,000 votes. You don't think, if Pitaki decided to run, the RNC and NRSC wouldn't come running with their war chest tied to their backs? What about every conservative group in the country? Look at what the Club For Growth did to Howard Dead in Iowa. Not only will conservatives come to aid Pitaki, but they'll want to put some dents in Clinton before '08. You don't think tens of millions of dollars poured in by Republicans would have any effect? I agree Democrats would come to aid Clinton, along with their all of their money, which is only to say it WOULD BE ONE, BIG POLITICAL FIGHT.

I never said Pitaki would win. I said it would be a dog fight. And it would be, if it would ever occur. Saying I'm wrong because Pitaki couldn't win is just a straw man's argument. I never said he could win. I merely said he would be competitive.

I don't know what I said would make you suggest I rely on Fox News, but whatever. I guess it's to make to portray me as a right-winger, which I'm not.

[ QUOTE ]
I know that you fancy yourself as some kinda amateur political scientist, but please- don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't 'fancy' myself anything, but even if I did fancy myself a political scientist, I would ignore your suggestion to stop.

[ QUOTE ]
RIIIGHT. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2 million, and where Pataki has a 42% approval rating?

[/ QUOTE ]

If registered voters were any indication, Clinton should have won by 2 million votes in 2000. She didn't. She won by 800k. Care to rethink your logic here?

[ QUOTE ]
Schumer beat his Republican opponent by more than 40 last November.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, Schumer was able to crush Howard Mills? It's convenient you didn't mention Schumer's opponent was some no-name clown. What was he, an assemblyman or something, right? His opponent wasn't George Pitaki, regardless.

[ QUOTE ]
Pataki and Giuliani won't run, and the Republicans will nominate a super-conservative freak as their canddiate. They'll pick some no-name nutjob to be their candidate, and Hillary will crush him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I doubt either Guiliani or Pitaki will be running. As for who the Republicans eventually nominate, it's possible it will just be some whipping boy. But there will be pressure from the national party on the NY Republican party to put up a credible candidate to begin the attack on Clinton. Will it happen? I have no idea. But you couldn't possibly know either.

[ QUOTE ]
She'll win at least 60% of the vote, guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]

She got 55% last time, against a credible candidate, but not one with the stature of Pitaki. If (and I agree this is an if ) the powers that be in the Republican Party decide to mount a real challenge against Clinton, I doubt she would get 60% of the vote.

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
Tennessee - Bill Frist (R) is retiring and is likely running for President. Harold Ford (D) is seeking the nomination from the Democrats, and is young, moderate, popular, and has name recognition in the state. It's a relatively conservative state, though, so I suspect it will be a close race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harold Ford Jr. won't do as well as one might think.

Firstly, he is a black liberal (more moderate than some Dems, but still a liberal in this state) from Memphis, which doesn't sell well in Rural Middle TN, or East TN.

Second of all, his uncle (a state Senator) is under investigation by the FBI and TBI, and with the recent news coverage of his ethics (or obvious lack thereof), he is not helping his nephew across the state.

If the election were right now, I am not even sure Ford, Jr. would run at this point with all the issues surrounding his family (his father was no saint either). Assuming the Republicans find a good candidate, this could easily be a +10% win for them in '06. However, TN politics is funny, and we are a long way from the '06 election.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
However, TN politics is funny, and we are a long way from the '06 election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could a group of you guys go to DC and take Frist to the woodshed and tell him to grow a set of balls? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If the election were right now, I am not even sure Ford, Jr. would run at this point

[/ QUOTE ]

The election isn't right now, but he is running.