Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Congressional Countdown: Women Candidates Poised to Play a Major Role in 2006

Congressional Countdown

A Key Race Scorecard -- Oct. 28, 2006

House (35 contested races)

Leans GOP
5
Toss-Up
17
Leans Dem
13

Senate (9 contested races)

Leans GOP
0
Toss-Up
4
Leans Dem
5

» Full Analysis

In today's Congressional Countdown we consider the possibility that 2006 will be remembered as the "Year of the Woman II."

The election of 1992 earned that label when voters elected four Democratic women to the Senate, their victories credited in part to reaction to the bitter confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment.

There are currently 67 women in the House, according to statistics kept by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. That could increase substantially if Democrats take control of the House.

Read the full analysis...

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  October 28, 2006; 9:48 AM ET
Categories:  House , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Michigan Senate: In Play Or All Over?
Next: Democrats Target Rep. Ryun in Kansas's 2nd District

Comments

Although I consider myself a moderate and and Independent, when the republican party called themselves the "party of moral values"they insulted a good many christians who don't believe the Jerry Falwell orthodoxy(like me)and now bemoan the corruption (Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay,Foley). Pelosi can't be worse than these three jerks.

Posted by: jean | November 1, 2006 3:07 AM | Report abuse

First of all S korea, Japan and Russian did not need much coaxing in to a stance against Kim Jung Il- China some but they had a lot ot lose if they did not oppose the nuclear proliferation in N. Korea. Enough about Condi Tina-atleast stop mentioning her a the Republican nominee for presidentuntil we are, well you know finished this election.

Posted by: Moderates Unite | October 30, 2006 3:57 PM | Report abuse

The Republican party has many elected women in Congress, and a few more might be added in November as well. Heather Wilson from New Mexico is also a former military member as well.

Condi is still running in the top tier of national polls. A strong woman, with foreign policy experience far beyond most other possible candidates. <Her Asian tour was successful in bring S Korea, China, Japan, and Russia together to put pressure on Kim Boy. Smart move and getting full support from UN as well.

I look forward to election night. We shall see what the 2007 Congress looks like and what the mood of the nation will be for the next 2 years.

Posted by: Tina | October 30, 2006 2:33 PM | Report abuse

See http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_congress_ever

Vote for Mean Jean! More R's in office! Let's see just how low we can go! Maybe they'll be honest enough to just burn the Constitution in a public square during the next Congressional session.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 29, 2006 11:10 PM | Report abuse

The atmosphere has gotten more toxic in the last few months, e.g. with the Foley scandal. I don't say Busby WILL win, just that she COULD. Cook has CA-50 rated Republican Favored right now.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 29, 2006 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Make that June. While Busby's number is within the Margin of Error, the difference from Bilbray's is not very much less than what the difference was in the actual election in June.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 29, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Sandwich: Why should we think that Busby will do any better against Bilbray in November than she did in May?

No woman in that seat; Bilbray keeps it for the GOP.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 29, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

R- Mean Jean Schmidt in OH-2, goodness, for the life of me I can't understand who let this woman out of her cage. Every time she opens her mouth she embarrasses the whole GOP Party. She's a party hack from the Nixon days and never had a job outside the local party's employ. Its politicians like Mean Jean that turn voters into good Democrats.

Down in her district, deep scarlet red country outside Cincinnati, even her strongest supporters admit she's a total wacko - they say, "Yeah, but she's our wacko!" A stirring campaign slogan, if I've ever heard one.

I heard it said she's so mean she'd walk a mile with a roofing nail in her shoe just to hit someone on the head with a brick-bat. Some local GOP's brain really slipped on a banana peel when they pushed her up on the stage.

Her Democratic opponent is Dr. Victoria Wulsin, MD. There couldn't be two more opposite people on earth. The Doc has a resume of good works a mile long, she's brilliant, eloquent, engaging. . . uggg - even I'd vote for her if I lived down there. Why can't Republican's nominate people like that!

And, people wonder why Ohio's turning blue?

Posted by: OhioRepublican | October 29, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I had noticed the unusually strong class of female candidates this cycle, too. It's amazing to me the overwhelming number of old, fat, white, Protestant, upper- and upper-middle-class BORING males still dominate American politics. And I'm saying that as someone who fits every one of those categories (except I'm not all that old). Good luck to most of them and to Speaker Pelosi. The change will almost certainly be a breath of fresh air, by and by.

I also agree with the idea that a large part of the problem with discourse in Washington lies with the far right--if you can't even agree on what constitutes the center, you'll never be able to deal honestly and productively in such a way that can produce compromise and consensus. According to some shrill "Conservatives," about 85% of the country are doctrinaire Liberals, because they stray from a harshly prescribed Conservative line. Any Democrat is automatically labeled, plus moderate independents and Republicans who don't believe single parents, homosexuals, the Insufficiently Christian, and the Poor would be better relegated to Concentration Camps. I'm hoping this election can put American Politics back on more of an even keel.

Posted by: Staley | October 29, 2006 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Halloween is fast approaching, and lunacy is reaching a fever pitch. The neo-conservative Cincinnati Enquirer has made a surprising endorsement of Cincinnati City Councilman D-Cranley over 4 term incumbent R-Chabot in OH-1, while endorsing R- Mean Jean Schmidt in OH-2. In the very same edition, Schmidt states her district should consider a repository for global nuclear waste. Unbelievable.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=EDIT

Enquirer endorses Cranley
The race for Ohio's First Congressional District offers a choice between a veteran worker and an energetic leader. It is time to pick up the pace. For that reason we endorse Democratic challenger John Cranley over incumbent Steve Chabot.

Enquirer endorses Schmidt
Despite Rep. Jean Schmidt's many missteps, she has been establishing herself as a working Congresswoman on a range of serious issues. The bottom line: She is a better legislator and district advocate than her opponent, Dr. Victoria Wulsin

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/NEWS01/610290398/1077/COL02

Schmidt considers nuke waste
This doesn't happen every day: An incumbent member of Congress, in the middle of a re-election battle, says that storing nuclear waste shipments from around the world in her district may be a good idea.

Posted by: DCA2CMH | October 29, 2006 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Harry Reid far left? Risible. Any one opposed to the tyrannical views of the radical right-wingers is now labeled far left. Tthe political discourse in this country has reached unseen lows of stupidity.

Conservatism is obviously dead in this country. Instead of fiscal restraint and less intervention in people's lives, the radical right-wingers who now dominate the GOP are borrowing and spending like drunken sailors and are giving the government more and more powers to intrude into people's lives.

Real conservative Republicans are an endangered species these days.

The reason that the right-wingers in Congress are so afraid of Pelosi is that, should she become the majority leader (or speaker), she will no doubt start cleaning house, and root out the corruption that is endemic in the GOP. Fat bastard Hastert and his cohorts of corrupt scumbags fear one thing: jail.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2006 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Pro-life Harry Reid represents the far left???
Here's a quarter, buy a clue.

Amy Klobuchar and possibly Claire McCaskill will add women to the Senate, while Harold Ford Jr. will hopefully become its second African-American member.

In the House, Gabrielle Giffords is a probable new female Rep. Possible new ones are Kirsten Gillibrand, Ellen Simon, Martha Rainville (doubtful), Judy Feder, Joy Padgett (unlikely), Diane Farrell, Tammy Duckworth, Linda Stender, Lois Murphy, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, Jill Derby, Tessa Hafen, Francine Busby, and Darcy Burner. MN-6 will replace a male Rep. with a female one no matter who wins. On the other hand, women could lose seats in KY-3, CT-5, FL-13, VA-2, IL-8, PA-4, NY-19, WY-AL, and WA-5.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 28, 2006 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Why does the white male dominated GOP fear Pelosi....could it be because she would be the most powerful WOMEN ever. IMO, the fear and scare tactics are about one thing...Women like Pelosi and HRC scare the dickens out of white males. Why. because they can suckle from the tit any longer.

Posted by: Stick A Fork IN IT. | October 28, 2006 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Hi, JCH77. Silly, maybe. Pointless, no. Since 911 I have watched Bush/congress attempt to deal with our security. In 5 years, republicans have done more to take away our freedoms, than to actually make us safer. I offer Homeland Security as example of an utter waste of billions of dollars collecting boxes full of baby formula and nail clippers. More laws by Bush/congress to circumvent the constitutional guarantees to the citizens. A mistake in Iraq, that seems to have no end. And no real security. Wide open borders, through which any terrorist may simply walk in. Finally, a small fence bill, with no money to build it. While the republicans have been weak on providing or enforcing any meaningful security, democrats have no plan whatsoever. Reid and Pelosi are just the easiest to pick on, with the worst voting records in congress relating to security. Preserving the Union and protecting our Constitutional form of government, should be every elected officials primary/only job. I fear the current congress has been a waste, but the next one may truly be a disaster.

Posted by: Jeebie | October 28, 2006 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Jeebie, that's a silly, pointless, trash-bash statement you made at the end. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are representative of the far left, because being controversial and appearing extremist is has been the only way to make a point against a Congress with an agenda designed not just to marginalize the minority, but eliminate it. Pelosi won't be Speaker. At best, she'll be Majority Leader (think Tom DeLay, but fewer felonies). The Speaker will be a moderate Democrat who can work with the minority.

Posted by: JCH77 | October 28, 2006 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Democrats already have 4 new women coming to the House next term:

Betty Sutton in Ohio
Kathy Castor in Florida
Yvette Clarke in New York
Mazie Hirono in Hawaii

Posted by: chadconfetti | October 28, 2006 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Agree with DCA2CMH. Except Al-Qaeda is not a threat anymore...They are mainstreaming in the suburbs. Dearborn, MI for example. No need to attack America, when Pelosi and Mexico get through with us, there wont be anything left that anyone would want, anyhow.

Posted by: Jeebie | October 28, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

JEP:

Agree with your assertion; oil (and Healthcare) are up to this in their eyeballs.

Think the rrue fact of the matter is that Bush II's true agenda has NEVER been about conservative familiy values, fiscal restraint, or even security (those came to him from population segments who have been ignored and were feeling desperately needed to be acknowledged).

If those "values" or security issues were truly paramount, legislation would have happened. It hasn't. Meaningful abortion restriction has not happened in the R- congress. There has been no successful federal legislation in the R-congress adressing/restricting gay rights, marriage, or partner benefits (those have been addressed regionally in the state houses). Iraq and the war on terror are a smoke screen (and very convenient one at that).

Bush II's TRUE agenda is to return to a social/political/tax structure that existed pre-WWI:
1. Bolster corporate income. Healthcare (Medicare/prescription drug, and corporate hospital systems)and Big Oil benefit.
2. Eliminate organized labor (provide corporate tax breaks for jobs-outsource, CAFTA, extension of NAFTA) to ensure there is no organized nor funded opposition to the corporate income enrichment.
3. Reduce income, capital gains & inheritance taxes to redistribute wealth back up the wealthiest 5% of the population.

Bush II has been exceptionally successful at his true agenda:
- It has squeezed the middle class.
- It has increased the size of the indigent class.
- It has enriched the priviledged class.
It has been enabled by a population enamored of him for addressing values issues and/or who've allowed themselves to be frightened post 9/11.

The post-union industrial heartland is really the battlefield for all of this. It's why IL and MI are true blue. It's why OH, where someone with the populist message like Sherrod Brown is carrying, is going there. Prayers don't feed or shelter us, and we've come to the conclusion that Al-Quada is really looking to NYC, DC, & LA, not Columbus, or Cleveland.

Posted by: DCA2CMH | October 28, 2006 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Anyone notice a shift of 1 more to the lean DEM category? Yesterday the number was 12. I think CC is more than a little conservative on this, but less than 10 days to the election and I think its safe to say with 13 leaning and 17 a toss-up. the House is going to the DEMS. Stick a fork in it, but vote anyway.

Posted by: Stick A Fork In IT. | October 28, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"One thing we can say is, it's likely to change, one way or the other."

Does Rove write thier stuff for them?
LMAO...

Posted by: JEP | October 28, 2006 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Here it comes; "Gas supplies tightening..."
From today's Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/10/28/shell_executive_sees_gas_supplies_tightening/

From the horse's mouth...

"Q Where's the price of gasoline headed?

A One thing we can say is, it's likely to change, one way or the other. But the industry's learned a hard lesson: We don't get into these predictions. We'd be wrong. We've been wrong in this business many times. Many of us thought back in 1998 and 1999 that under-$10-a-barrel oil was here to stay. Boy, were we dead wrong.

One thing I can say, though, is that coming into this season, after last year's hurricanes, we planned for more inventory to cope with the possibility of plant shutdowns. We also incentivized dealers to keep their tanks full. As a consequence, we have a short-term surplus of supply, which is affecting prices.

Q How much longer can that excess supply keep dampening prices?

A We're pretty much getting to the end of it and back to more of a living hand-to-mouth situation in terms of supply. When you get to a hand-to-mouth situation, you can see a lot more volatility in prices. Demand is higher than a year ago, and once that's worked off, we could see the same supply-demand tensions we saw a year ago."

The between-the-lines pattern here is;
"One thing we can say is... when the election is over, we're gonna stick it to you again at the pump!!!"

Posted by: JEP | October 28, 2006 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who denies the long history of voter fraud and election manipulation by the Bush family is forgetting Sr's years at the CIA, where that was his JOB.

Elections across Central America, Europe and the Middle East were managed by that small and silent circle of manipulators, and anyone who thinks they aren't still "with us" is either ignoring the truth or part of the lie.

Anyone who thinks this is a paranoid delusion is ignoring Exxon's record profits.

You are either naive or you are one of thier ignorant enablers if you suggest that this is just a conspiracy theory.

Ultimate power not only corrupts ultimately, it invariably leaves in its wake a raging, devious, bloodthirsty beast that will protect itself with any tool, no matter how unholy, and at any cost.

So don't be naive.

They WILL commit election fraud if it is thier only way to hold onto power. Would you expect anything else of them?

It is not just a possibility, it is a probability, that there has been and will continue be election fraud of historic proportions, to match the historic desperation of the neocons, thier operatives and thier subsidiaries.

$20 billion in oil profits EVERY QUARTER will buy more than one politician and fix more than one election.

Posted by: JEP | October 28, 2006 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I was recently in Arizona and they are talking about Pederson as a viable candidate against Kyl. I found this article:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1025senate-poll1025.html
It indicates that there is a 6 point spread. Is this ASU poll real?
Do you think there's a chance the Az seat could be in play?

Posted by: Randy | October 28, 2006 9:55 AM | Report abuse

No wonder the Republicans are so scared...

Posted by: JEP | October 28, 2006 9:55 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company