When I read this diary entry about looking ahead to 2010, I was rather confused. Not that I don’t mind a fruitful analysis of electoral politics to come, but it has to at least make sense. There’s just so much on it that just doesn’t. I thought I write my own diary about this topic, since a post just isn’t enough:
Illionis: Melissa Bean? Seriously? She’s never carried more than 51% in her own district. How do you expect her to appeal statewide. Besides, I’d think she’d be in an Obama cabinet in some minor post.
Alaska: How can Lisa Murkowski not be vulnerable? She won only 49% in 2004, and if either Mark Begich or Ethan Berkowitz are unsuccessful this year, they have only 2 years to wait before taking on a more vulnerable Murkowski.
Arkansas: Where has it been said that Mike Huckabee is interesting in running for Senate? I’m not criticizing this one, I’d just like to know where he expressed interest in taking on Lincoln.
Vermont: Yeah, Leahy’s not retiring, that’s for sure. Your analysis about his desire to keep out conservative judges is murky at best.
Utah: Matheson is not stupid. He’s not going to run for Senate even if it’s an open seat.
Hawaii: Abercrombie’s too old for the Senate. I think this may represent a GOP pickup with Lingle instead, maybe the only one for 2010 for the Republicans.
Colorado: So Tancredo’s going to spend the next two years shouting racist rhetoric from the sidelines to build up a credible Senate run. Ken Salazar must be peeing his pants (from laughing too hard)
Washington: Reichert’s not going to run. Darcy Burner’s going to defeat him, and he’s going to back home trying to find another mass murderer.
Connecticut: I don’t think Dodd will retire because of that scandal. He seemed genuinely innocent and clueless (which saids a lot about members of Congress) when answering questions about it. He’ll survive.
Louisiana: If Vitter didn’t resign then, he’s not going to resign in 2010. He may get beat, maybe by Melancon, maybe someone else. I don’t know.
South Dakota: I think a Thune-Herseth contest is possible. If Herseth loses, she could always wait around until Tim Johnson retires in 2014 (yes, I am willing to bet my house on that!)
Pennsylvania: I don’t think Rendell will run. He said he likes being a boss, and being in the Senate is far from being that.
Missouri: I actually think Bond will retire.
I think I’ve said enough. I agree that’s there’s WAY too many congressman being given way too much kissing of the ass.
Anyway, let’s just focus on 2008, then we can start talking about 2010.
But don’t call out other users in diary titles. Please edit your title. I also don’t see the need for the mockery in your first paragraph, but there’s only so far I’m willing to go to nanny this site.
The whole purpose of my Senate 2010 was to provide insight on “interesting” not “possible” races. Maybe if you reviewed it more clearly, then you would not have found the need to draw up your own planning board. Furthermore, your liberalism tells you that Bean would be a horrible choice for Senate. My feeling is that if appointed to the Senate she would adopt a more left to center voting record as oppossed to her existing moderate to conservative voting record (you may consider it too conservative after all, yet her voting represents her constituency). Your choice for her replacement would be an ultra-liberal such as Schakowky, who would be an absolute underdog in any general election. Or better yet, maybe you prefer Emmanuel, sure he helped Democrats take a majority in 2006, yet more of the credit belongs with George Bush and the failed Republican Party, than with Emmanuel. Whoever is appointed to the Senate from Illinois should be viewed as supported by Obama, rather than appointed by a scandal-plagued governor. I think Obama would personally prefer Bean over any other Democrat in the state, knowing that she would be viewed as a moderate and easily defeat any Republican come 2010 (most of the nation is moderate, not liberal, nor conservative). Also, why should Democrats appoint an ultra-liberal to the seat, when Democrats may find itself with unanticipated open seats mostly due to age or health problems (Byrd, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Akaka).
That also brings me to the question of Lieberman. Many liberals say throw him overboard. I agree he is an absolute failure and I voted against him. However, does he not become important when a 60 seat veto majority is necessary. Should Lieberman resign who appoints his successor? A Republican governor and the likelihood is that she would appoint one of three people: Shays, Simmons, or Lt. Gov. Fedele. Should Shays win in November, Republicans know they can count on State Senator McKinney, the son of Shays successor, to provide a winning strategy in retaining this seat. Should Shays lose November, Lieberman who absolutely supports him, may decide that the Democratic Party has veered too far to the left and instead open up his own seat for Shays. Sure, it is all wishful thinking, yet nothing in politics is certain, is it?
Also, in regards to Dodd, his unpopularity has very little to do with the mortgage coverage, rather it has to do with the fact that the citizens of Connecticut are becoming rather disenchanted with the liberal wing of the party. The state legislature is controlled by ultra-liberals. The state has the nations highest tax burden, the 4th has the highest of 435 congressional districts. As I stated, it is the Southwestern part of the state that decides winners and losers, and right now they are starting to view Dodd as a loser. Also many Democrats are becoming rather impatient with Dodd and matter of factly want his seat since it is becoming less likely that Rell can be defeated should she run for a third term, as she has stated she intends to do. So who are these impatient Democrats wanting Dodd’s seat? Attorney General Blumenthal, Secretary of State Bysiewicz, Stamford mayor Malloy, New Haven mayor DeStefano, and State Senator Martin Looney.
Also, Lisa Murkowski is safe once Young and Stevens are gone. She has a moderate voting record. What liberal can you find amongst Alaska’s icebergs that would have a winning chance against her. And while it is likely that Leahy will not retire (sure he said he wouldn’t, yet so did many Republicans say they would keep their term limit pledges), the mere fact is that a possibility exists. If he does resign the likelihood is that Douglas would not challenge any Democratic nominee, most likely Welch, since the Republican Party is endangered throughout the Northeast (they are virtually extinct in Massachusetts now).
Finally, Rendell could run for the Senate seat of Specter, yet there is virtually no possibility he would challenge Specter. He would only run if the seat was open. Now if Specter says he’s running for re-election and Rendell says he’s not interested in the seat, may it be merely an ackowledgement to Specter that he has no interest in challenging him. Specter says he’s running again, my instinct tells me that he will not. Therefore, having lived in Montgomery County, one of the fastest growing areas of the state, I believe that any Republican and Democratic nominee would come from this area. Unless Democrats can expand their narrow majority in the State House and pick up eight Senate seats, then one can easily conclude that Republicans will be doing redistricting come 2011 and Pennsylvania is projected to lose one, possibly two, seats. This would be a perfect opportunity for Schwartz to move into the Senate, unless she wants to be pushed into a district with Sestak come 2012. As for the Republican side Gerlach, a moderate, seems like the best choice. Santorum was not popular statewide, other than in the conservative fringes of central Pennsylvania. Of course Tom Ridge could make this seat even more competitive than Gerlach. It’s all probability, yet I agree that the political power base of the state has moved from the western half (Santorum and Ridge) to the eastern part (Casey and Rendell). As for central Pennsylvania, they would most appropriately be classified as the area in between, yet with very little power.
As an aside you should know that I am a moderate Democrat. I do not skew my views necessarily because I relate more with the Democratic Party. I will not conclude that Schakowsky can win statewide in Illinois, nor Wexler in Florida. The mere fact is that they cannot win statewide since their politics are too liberal. Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, and Sheila Jackson Lee (who I consider one of the more effective members of Congress) are other Democrats who could never win statewide. Their politics may fit their district, yet it ends at the border. Outside of the district it then becomes a struggle. Likewise, a few Republicans that would struggle to win statewide include: Darrell Issa, Marilyn Musgrave, Virginia Foxx, and Tom Feeney. One’s politics may be restrained to an artificial line (district borders), yet the likelihood is that the Democrats and Republicans listed above would not change with the lines, even when the politics of the constituency does.
Take notice: I also live in Connecticut and my part of the state is not moving to the left. My part of the state helps Republicans get elected statewide. Chris Dodd is barely in this part of the state. In fact, he lives in the Eastern part of the state and his nearest office is an hour and half away. If Dodd does run for re-election then I agree he would get re-elected, unless Rell decided to challenge him, which is unlikely. Dodd is more popular in the eastern part of the state, than in the western part. Connecticut is not Massachusetts, thanks to Fairfield County.
Could anyone imagine how many Latino’s would show up to vote in Colorado if Ken Salazar is being challenged by Tom Tancredo. The image of one of the few Latino Senator’s being challenged by an anti-immigrant hawk would bring people out to vote.