Ah, how the siren song of sixty senate seats serenades us. With “just” nine more seats in the upper chamber, Democrats can, in theory, exercise total control over the legislative agenda. Republicans will no longer be able to obstruct the progress the American people demand. And with a Democrat 1600 Pennsylvania and Nancy Pelosi guiding the People’s House with a firm hand, we will see the dawn of a new golden age for the Blue.
Hey, anything is possible, and nine seats certainly looks a lot more realistic, if still distant, today than it did a year ago. But here’s a new question: Have we just walked right smack into the next Republican talking-point scare tactic? Bob Novak, the Prince of Darkness, might have just tipped his hand in bringing up this tidbit:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), in his second term running the Senate Democratic campaign, publicly expresses doubt about picking up an additional nine seats to achieve a filibuster-free Senate. But he has been soliciting popular Democratic governors from Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming to run against incumbent Republican Senators from those “red” states – perhaps even to win the magic nine seats. The problem is that these governors do not relish running with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.
At first I thought this was just a way for the Douchebag of Liberty to ding Schumer by setting up absurdly unrealistic expectations, and to perpetuate a largely baseless smear against Clinton. But one of my political mentors suggested that the fear of a filibuster-proof Senate might serve as a baseline defense, the ultimate desperation firewall, a means for the GOP to nationalize the elections in their favor. I think this view may be right.
Indeed, Chuck Schumer is no dummy – he didn’t raise the issue of a sixty-seat Dem majority himself. While liberal bloggers and even Beltway prognosticators have openly discussed this possibility for some time, Schumer only spoke on the topic because the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza broached it in an interview. But Novakula – who often serves as a mouthpiece for the conservative hive mind – looks like he’s trying to make an issue out of this.
On the other hand, Novak is as delusional as often as he is right. It may well be that hyping procedural arcana to stoke Fear of a Blue Planet is a bridge too far even for the GOP. After all, Republican attempts to thwart Democrats last year by invoking the specter of a Pelosi-led House did not seem all that successful. And it’s one thing to pin your hopes on people understanding what majorities mean – start jawing about this sixty-seat silliness and all but the savviest may well tune you out.
In any event, stay alert for this potential talking point. If you see any examples of Republicans flogging this, let us know.
it is hard to know at this point if Hillary at the top of the ticket will hurt DEMS seeking seats in hot red states.
First, we must be very honest with ourselves and look at the statistics for these states, completely independent of HRC.
Example: Kansas last elected a democratic senator in 1932. Not only that, Sam Brownback, senator and fundamentalist preacher, carries the distinction of being the most popularly-elected politician in Kansas history and is a current candidate for the Republican party nomination for President in 2008. Nebraska is a neighbor state to KS, and Hagel was already a very centrist republican. One would think that getting that seat to flip would be easy, but look at the stats for NE: huge margins for the GOP in GEs, and the democratic senator already there, Nelson, is about as conservative as a democrat can get and still be called a democrat. Taking the seat is possible, but hard, and frankly may have nothing at all to do with HRC.
So, with or without HRC, it would be hard for DEMS in the deep deep RED states.
Now, to HRC. As GWB 41 loved to say, it looks like a “feeding frenzy” when it comes to words written about her like “polarizing”, “liberal” or “electability”, but all early polls, especially the parts showing her postive ratings, are not bearing these things out.
Last week, in a SUSA poll, she was statistically in a dead heat with RG in Oklahoma (44-47). Oklahoma! Disclaimer: one should take care with SUSA polls, their methodology can be questioned.
In a poll in SC three weeks ago, her favorability ratings were 68%.
And finally, Schumer has worked tirelessly for the democratic party. It’s probably good, as you pointed out, to read the entire discourse, and not damn the man. Not to forget, nine months ago no one would have even considered that 9 seats could be in reach.
And who would would have thought at the beginning of 2006 that 6 senate seats could flip, thereby giving the DEMS a razor-rhin edge?
Expect a lot of right wing propaganda about Bill and Hillary and be prepared to counter it agressively at every turn. Soon we will be hearing about “favorability” instead of “negatives”. And maybe polarization is not so bad. It elected GWB at least one time, in 2004.
And what is liberal? Well, check out Theodore Roosevelt and his biography. Then you will know in which party positive liberal thought first found nourishing ground.
I personally don’t believe that we are going to win a fillibuster-proof majority,that would require us to sweep the open seats (Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico, and Nebraska), all of the competitive races (New Hampshire, Louisiana-Defense, Oregon, Minnesota, Maine), and then win one more (maybe Kentucky, Alaska, or Oklahoma).
My opinion is if we’ve already swept all the open and competitive races anyways, it’s not that big a jump to get the ninth seat (assuming there is a strong candidate in play). I don’t really think, as it stands now we have the ability to sweep all of those seats, YET.
Until we get stronger challengers in New Mexico and Nebraska, I call NM a toss-up slight Republican tinge and NE a Leans Republican, in states like Oregon and Maine it’s still a bit of an uphill battle, not saying we don’t have a very solid shot of winning, but they’ve got decent infrastructures and are relatively popular in their states (still, with the presidential race bringing up turnout in these blue states, that should work towards neutralizing their incumbency advantage). Right now, I would give the Dems a net gain of 5 (we win Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Oregon) (basically, I think that we win at least two of the open Republican seats and the two blue states move towards us)