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

The Friday Line: Static Senate Rankings Still Favors Dems

Since January 2005, political insiders and journalists have focused largely on the same set of Senate races that are expected to be competitive this fall. So when one party starts talking about a race that, to date, hasn't been included in that original set, the tendency is to immediately see it as the hot new thing.

Take the Virginia Senate race, which Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer described earlier this week as the potential "Cinderella" of the 2006 cycle.

The Fix remains skeptical that the Virginia race merits mention in the top-tier of takeover opportunities. First, it's not apparent that first-term Sen. George Allen (R) is particularly vulnerable -- regardless of who Democrats nominate to oppose him. As already noted in this blog, Allen must struggle with the perception that he's less interested in continuing to represent Virginia in the Senate than he is in laying the groundwork for a 2008 presidential bid. But a potentially distracting White House run isn't going to dissuade voters from reelecting Allen. Democrats will almost certainly try to cast Allen as a clone of President Bush (both politically and stylistically), but Virginia voters have elected Allen to the state House, the U.S. House, the governorship and the Senate over the past decade -- a sign that Allen has found a winning formula in the state.

Second, it is very much an open question who the Democratic nominee will be and how strong a campaign he will run. National Democratic Party leaders clearly favor former Navy Secretary Jim Webb, but former technology lobbyist Harris Miller is dipping into his personal fortune to fund his campaign and he boasts more pristine Democratic credentials than Webb. Neither Webb nor Miller is a particularly polished candidate (especially in comparison to Allen), and neither has proven that he can put together the kind of broad-based fundraising operation necessary to compete with Allen.

All of the above doesn't mean that Virginia won't ever make the Friday Senate Line. It simply means the race isn't there yet. If Webb wins the primary and if he is able to raise $1 million or $2 million in the immediate aftermath of that victory, then the race could be worth a second look. But that's too many "ifs" to merit a place on the Line right now.

As always, the no. 1 race on the Friday Line is the one that is most likely to switch parties this fall. Click the state names for additional information about each race. As always, the comments section is open below for further discussion.

To the Line!

10. New Jersey: Appointed Sen. Bob Menendez (D) has outperformed state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R) so far in this contest, showing off the political chops that propelled him into the halls of Congress and the House Democratic leadership. It's that image -- Menendez as the relentless politico -- that Republicans believe will ultimately be his undoing. Kean is running as a reformer in a state that has been wracked by scandals in recent years, offering the Republicans the chance to portray Menendez as guilty by association. For now, we are keeping the contest low on the Line -- pending further developments. (Previous ranking: 10)

9. Maryland -- OPEN: Like Tennessee (#7 below), much of where this race ends up on the Line depends on who wins the Sept. 12 Democratic primary. Rep. Ben Cardin is the clear favorite of the party establishment and has banked more than $2.6 million to spend on an advertising blitz in the primary's final weeks. Polling shows former Rep. Kweisi Mfume running nearly even with Cardin, but the Mfume's anemic fundraising ($185,000 on hand at the end of March) brings into question whether he can compete with Cardin on the airwaves. Republicans believe that if Mfume is the nominee, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) has a real chance at victory. The problem for Steele is that he is running in one of the bluest states in the country in a year where the national environment favors Democrats. That's a steep hill to climb. (Previous ranking: 8)

8. Nebraska: Former Ameritrade executive Pete Ricketts's (R) primary win earlier this week moves this race up a slot on the Line. Ricketts's 47 percent was not an overwhelming margin, but the quality of the campaign he ran in the primary bodes well for Republicans in the fall. Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson is one of the savviest politicians in his party, but the electoral math for him is daunting due to the overwhelmingly Republican nature of the state. President Bush carried Nebraska by 33 points in 2004; the president's popularity free-fall nationally probably won't matter munch in a state that remains one of the reddest in the country. Making his first run for elected office, Ricketts can position himself in any way he sees fit; he appears to be casting himself as a political outsider rather than a reliable Republican vote -- a savvy move in the current climate. Ricketts's personal wealth (he donated $5 million to his primary bid) ensures he will be at parity with Nelson on the airwaves. The elements are in place for Republicans to make a serious challenge here in November, but given Nelson's political know-how and the pro-Democratic national environment, the incumbent retains the advantage. (Previous ranking: 9)

7. Tennessee -- OPEN: Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. has run an intriguing campaign so far, going on television earlier than almost any other candidate in the country to talk about issues of the day like port security and high gas prices. That willingness to take risks -- combined with a decidedly friendly national environment -- could make Ford the rare Democrat with a real chance to win a federal race in the South. Former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R) has salted away more than $4 million for an extended television campaign aimed at defining himself before his primary opponents -- former Reps. Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary -- do if for him. But Corker may need every cent to defend himself against likely attacks on his Republican credentials. A Bryant or Hilleary primary win increases Ford's chances at victory. (Previous ranking: 7)

6. Minnesota -- OPEN Rep. Mark Kennedy continues to represent Republicans' best chance at a pick-up this cycle, but his road is not an easy one. Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar (D) cleared the primary field with remarkable ease over the past six months and has performed admirably on the fundraising front -- raising more than $3.7 million by the end of March. Klobuchar campaign pollster Anna Greenberg released a survey this week that showed her candidate with a 50 percent to 42 percent lead over Kennedy. More interesting than the head-to-head number, however, was that 66 percent of the sample said the state was on the wrong track and 58 percent voiced disapproval of the job President Bush is doing. Since the numbers were provided by Klobuchar's pollster, we take them with a grain of salt. But if Greenberg's numbers are anywhere close to where public sentiment actually lies, it will be extremely difficult for Kennedy to win. (Previous ranking: 5)

5. Missouri: The stem-cell issue has tied Sen. Jim Talent (R) in knots. After pulling his support for a Senate bill that would have banned all human cloning (including stem cell research) earlier this year, Talent came out this month against a Missouri ballot initiative that would mandate the protection of such research in the state's constitution. Conservative groups praised Talent for his more recent position after pummeling him for changing his mind on the Senate legislation. Polling shows that a clear majority of Missouri voters favor stem cell research, and state Auditor Claire McCaskill (D) has repeatedly bashed Talent for his position. It could be the wedge issue that McCaskill needs to peel off loosely affiliated Republicans in November. (Previous ranking: 6)

4. Ohio: Outgoing Gov. Bob Taft's (R) ethical problems have undoubtedly weakened his party's hand heading into the 2006 midterms. But it's a distinct possibility that disgruntled voters will vent their spleen at Taft by voting against Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R) in the governor's race rather than punishing Sen. Mike DeWine (R). It's tough to know where the contest stands, as a poll released by Rep. Sherrod Brown's campaign showed the Democratic challenger with a one-point edge; meanwhile, an independent survey showed DeWine with a 47 percent to 36 percent edge. Republicans are convinced that Brown is too liberal for the state and say he has cast a series of votes that will raise the eyebrows of Ohio voters. If this race is a referendum on the Republican Party -- in the state and nationally -- DeWine will struggle. If, however, the race becomes a contest largely about the two men, DeWine is an even-money bet. (Previous ranking: 3)

3. Montana: No Senate race in the country is more engaged at the moment than this one. Sen. Conrad Burns (R) is already on TV and radio attacking his Democratic opponents -- nearly seven months before the general election. State Treasurer John Morrison still seems like the favorite in his June 6 Democratic primary race against state Sen. Jon Tester. Regardless of who Democrats pick as their nominee, the general election is almost certain to shake out as a referendum on Burns and his alleged ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Burns has denied any wrongdoing, but the federal investigation is ongoing and until (and if) Burns is cleared, this race will remain high on the Line. (Previous ranking: 4)

2. Rhode Island: For the first time since The Fix started compiling the Senate Line, we seriously contemplated moving this race down a slot or two. Secretary of State Matt Brown's (D) departure from the primary (a bow to the inevitable) should help former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse (D) consolidate support and save resources for the general election. And there is a very real possibility that Sen. Lincoln Chafee will lose the Republican primary in September to Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey. But if Chafee wins the primary, his moderate Republican credentials will make it difficult for Democrats to paint him as a tool of President Bush. The race keeps its high spot on the Line pending the results of the Republican primary, but the lack of a competitive primary on the Democratic side makes it easier for Chafee to win his own primary race. Whitehouse vs. Laffey, the Democrat probably wins. But in a Whitehouse-Chafee match-up, the seat is much more likely to remain in GOP hands. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Pennsylvania: Two polls released this week painted vastly different pictures of the contest. The first -- by Republican firm Strategic Vision -- showed State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. (D) with a 49 percent to 41 percent edge over Sen. Rick Santorum (R); the second -- conducted by Quinnipiac University -- had Casey ahead by a wider 49 percent to 36 percent margin. Which is right? Here's a little trick The Fix learned from political analyst Charlie Cook (our former boss): When two polls show varying results in the same race, take the two and split the difference. That method produces a Casey lead of 10.5 points, which is roughly the same margin he has maintained over Santorum for months. This race is sure to close somewhat, as Santorum's base rallies to him. But the senator remains an underdog for reelection. (Previous ranking: 1)

See The Fix's last ranking of Senate races online here.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 12, 2006; 6:02 AM ET
Categories:  Senate , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tenn. Senate: Corker's Cash Advantage
Next: Insider Interview: Rodriguez Helps Lay Groundwork For Pataki '08

Comments

Tester, Morrison deadlocked
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON - IR State Bureau - 05/28/06

HELENA -- John Morrison and Jon Tester are running neck-and-neck in their race for the June 7 Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Conrad Burns, a Lee Newspapers poll taken last week shows.

Morrison received 42 percent to Tester's 41 percent of the likely Democratic primary voters, with 14 percent undecided, according to the poll that was taken May 22-24.

Looks like the 30 percent undecided vote from last month's poll has broken Jon Tester's way. He is now statistically even with State Auditor John Morrison, with 14 percent of voters yet to commit. Tester appears to have the momentum now that television ads have erased much of the name recognition gap that existed at the start of this race. Tester started with a funny ad that made fun of his flat-top haircut. Another ad shows him working on his farm.

Neither is attacking the other, although some have called Morrison to task on the extra marital affair with a women who later married a man who was a subject of Investigation with the state auditors office. The state investigation seemed to languish, though when the Feds stepped in the man was quickly prosecuted and convicted. Four prominent lawyers issued a press release this week, in which the legal ethics of this affair and it's aftermath were questioned. Though Morrison enjoyed large donations from Montana Plaintiff Attorneys in the Montana Trial Lawyer's Association early in the campaign, one of the four has given his limit to Morrison and has now come out publicaly for Morrison. That may give Tester the edge in how those last 14 percent of undecideds split out on election day, which is one week away.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | May 30, 2006 11:30 AM | Report abuse

And I think turnout will be far more crucial than minor candidates.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 17, 2006 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Repairman, I never said to focus solely on the minor candidates, but they are part of the big picture. One aspect of conversation that doesn't seem to happen when it comes to races are the minor candidates. It is a fact that having a former republican running as an independant, (like we'll see in the Alaska Gov race or DeLay's old seat) takes votes away from Republicans. Third party candidates that are close to one side (like Mihos in the MA Gov race) take votes away from that party.

The same can be said about other third party candidates. As I have stated before, Libertarian candidates tend to take votes away from Republicans. The Green party candidates do the same to Democrats. There is a whole host of other parties that sit in the middle that take away votes from one side or the other or both equally like Perot did.

Pointing out the Senate race in Tennessee, there are 3 minor candidates who are all conservatives. They will take votes away from Hilleary or Bryant should they win the nomination. All together, they will probably get 50,000 votes in total, but if the race is close, 50,000 votes could make the difference.

Pointing this out is not focusing narrowly on these candidates, but pointing out the fact that they will have an impact in the race. Even the smallest impact can change a race, you only need 1 more vote than your opponent to win.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 17, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

And you still don't know whether, had there been no Libertarian candidate, those Libertarian votes would have gone to Thune, or if those people just wouldn't have voted in that race at all.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 17, 2006 3:30 AM | Report abuse

But Rob, at that point you can attribute the result of a close election to almost anything. Johnson's registration and turnout efforts among American Indians, fundraising advantages, help from national party committees or interest groups, advertisements, debates, incumbency, voting rules, demographic population changes, media coverage...to focus narrowly on the minor candidates just seems like missing the big picture to me.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 17, 2006 3:28 AM | Report abuse

Keenan has credentials to run for U.S. Senate, but announced his candidacy just before the filing deadline and has very little money. So he has no chance to beat Burns.

BUT, a significant vote for Keenan, will be reported as an indicator of Burns' weakness. If Keenan gets any significant vote, the Montana press will consider him a moral victor of sorts, so Burns will get no bounce from his inevitable primary win, and will get more negative press if Keenan can pul at least 10 percent of the primary vote, easily within his grasp.

Burns should know this story well. In 1988, incumbent Democrat Senator John Melcher faced only Bob Kelleher in the primary. Kelleher (he's running as a Republican this time) has just one issue, that we should convert to a parliamentary democracy. He's previously run as a Green and before that, always as a Democrat in either the Governor's or U.S. Senate race. But Kelleher, usually a one-percenter, got more than 10 percent of the protest vote.

Melcher was unpopular with the Greens in the Democratic side (Montana is an open primary state) and so his victory was counted as a negative because of the significant "protest" vote.

This made him look even more vulnerable. The state press portrayed it that way, and a Yellowstone County Commissioner and former Ag broadcaster named Conrad Burns beat him in the 1988 general election.

Out of staters like to portray John Morrison as apparent winner-to-be of the Democratic Primary. But there is a whopping 31 percent of undecided voters in the last poll.

Morrison, who started with great name recognition advantage, having run two state-wide races for State Auditor, has a small lead among decided voters, but it is Tester who has gained the ground against him. As a state Senator he is well known in his home district in Montana's "Golden Triangle" of North Central Montana. He is a farmer there and makes his living on it. We have a part-time legislature in this state.

As Senate Majority Leader last session, he is also known amoung those who closely follow state politics. But the reliable Democratic vote in Montana for the primary is in the cities, especially, Missoula, Helena, Great Falls, Butte, Bozeman and Billings.

So count this one a toss up. Morrison will have much more television ads because he has more money, having close connections among the Montana legal community, but Tester is on the air too. It all depends how the nearly one-third undecided vote breaks.

And presentation will be a major part of that, since there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them on the issues. Tester has taken a stronger stance against the war, that might help him with liberal democrats, especially in Montana's second largest city, Missoula. It is home to the University of Montana and easily the most liberal city in the state.

Among Democrats in Missoula, the war is a significant issue and Tester has done a lot of grass root work in Missoula. The fact that Pearl Jam, with Big Sandy native Jeff Ament, played a benefit concert for him in Missoula, probably makes Tester the favorite in the County with the states largest collection of democrats. I know people in both camps and the Morrison people concede that Tester is ahead in Missoula in their campain polling.

It will be a tight race for the Democratic election.

Burns is ignoring Keenan, which might not be smart. His adds, which went negative right away, criticize only the two Democrats. He's already running running in just the general.

Tester and Morrison also ignore each other (at least publicly) Their ads are either introductory in nature or are pointed at Burns.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | May 16, 2006 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I gotta tell you guys have got a great one in Harold Ford. I saw him speak at the Indiana JJ Dinner and he rocked. Well-spoken, articulate and passionate... he's a keeper. He even gave his tacit endorsement to my man, Sen Bayh, in his presumptive 2008 presidential bid by volunteering to be his finance chair. Outstanding!

You can read a blow-by-blow of the event at http://www.allamericapac.com/blog

Posted by: Rob | May 16, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

repairman,

You are correct, in that instance, even with all the Green votes, Carnahan would not have won. However, I'd bet everything that Thune would have beaten Johnson if it wasn't for Evans, the Libertarian candidate. Libertarian candidates typically take more votes away from Republican candidates and Green's typically take away from Democrats.

By the way, Gilmoure is already better known in the state than than Millay was. He's run for state senate twice in 04 and 02

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 16, 2006 12:36 AM | Report abuse

Rasmussen just found Sherrod Brown leading Mike DeWine 44-41 in Ohio:

The 44% level of support for Brown is his highest of the season. DeWine has lost ground in four straight polls since peaking at 46% in mid-February.

...

When Ohio voters are asked which party they trust more on five key issues, national security is the only one where the GOP comes out on top. Democrats are trusted more on immigration, the economy, energy policy and the War in Iraq.

President Bush's numbers in the state are atrocious. Just 25% give him good or excellent marks for handling both the immigration issue and energy policy.

However, the President's numbers are stronger than Ohio Governor Robert Taft (R). Just 2% of the state's voters "Strongly Approve" of Taft's job performance while 55% "Strongly Disapprove."

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 15, 2006 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Recent revelations about phone companies providing the National Security Agency with call logs from its customers might highlight a deep ambivalence from the public about the lengths the government should go to in fighting terrorism.

A slight majority (51 percent) told Gallup/USA Today pollsters they disapproved of the program to collect phone records, which began making headlines last week. Forty-three percent said they approved.

And a new survey from Newsweek found similar sentiments: Fifty-three percent of respondents said they thought the program "goes too far in invading people's privacy," compared with 41 percent who deemed it a "necessary tool to combat terrorism."

But that doesn't mean they're taking it personally. Gallup/USA Today pollsters found more than six in 10 said they wouldn't be concerned if they knew the government had their records; 22 percent said they would be very concerned, and 13 percent said they would be somewhat concerned. Those numbers dovetail neatly with an ABC News/Washington Post overnight poll released last week, which showed 66 percent of respondents saying it would not bother them if they found out the NSA had a record of their calls.

On the other hand, Gallup/USA Today also found that a majority of respondents (57 percent) said they would feel their "personal privacy" had been violated if they knew their phone company had handed their records over to the government; 42 percent said they would not. Nearly two-thirds also said they would favor immediate hearings in Congress to probe the issue.

Respondents to the Newsweek poll found fault with the executive branch, as well. When pollsters asked if presidential powers have been overextended "in light of this news and other executive actions by the Bush-Cheney administration," 57 percent said it had and 38 percent said it had not. Responses were split along party lines -- with 81 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Republicans answering affirmatively -- but 61 percent of self-identified independents fell on the same side.

Most of Newsweek's release focused on President Bush and Congress, showing another new low for Bush. Thirty-five percent said they approved of the way he is handling his job and 59 percent said they disapproved, only a slight shift from March's 36/58 split.

The direction-of-the-country measure showed a more precipitous drop: Just 23 percent said they were satisfied with the way things are going in the United States, down 7 points since the previous poll. A slight majority -- 52 percent -- said they wanted to see Democrats win back control of Congress in the fall; 35 percent said they wanted the GOP to keep its grip on power.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 15, 2006 1:30 PM | Report abuse

As an example, here are the results of the 2002 Senate race in MO: http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/raceresults.asp?eid=87&oid=24756&arc=1

Carnahan lost by about 21,000 votes (Her margin in St. Louis County was too small because Talent is from there). The Libertarian candidate got 18,000 (1%) while the Green got 10,000 (0.6%). It seems reasonable to assume that the Libertarian would get about 1% of the vote again this fall too. So unless there's some reason to think the Libertarian Senate candidate in MO is significantly stronger this year than in 02, I don't see it as a factor. If anything, compared to 2002, what could arguably help McCaskill is if the Libertarian pulled 1% again but no Green were on the ballot this time. Still, you can see that in this instance, giving every Green vote to the Democrat wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 15, 2006 2:41 AM | Report abuse

PS I concede that "obsessed" was a kind of irresponsible exaggeration. I should have found a milder word.

And for what it's worth, I do think it plausible that Tina, Karen, etc. are all the same person.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 15, 2006 2:21 AM | Report abuse

Rob, I think you're greatly overestimating the importance of minor party candidates. It's one thing to look at the vote counts and say that a minor candidate had more votes than the margin between the main two, but figuring out what would have happened had that candidate not been in the race, or whether those people would have voted, and for whom, is a whole different ballgame. Studies on Perot's candidacy found that he had no net effect on the Bush-Clinton race. Should we also say that the Libertarian threw the 2000 WA Senate race from Gorton to Cantwell? Or that Nader's candidacy helped her? What about the close races every cycle--NV Senate in 1998, SD Senate in 2002, Reps. Bob Beauprez, Mike Rogers, or Joe Hoeffel? WA's 2004 Gov. race? Gore's 2000 win in NM? Did these people all win because of minor candidates? I've seen no data on any of that. The US is a two party system by design (if unintentionally). I don't know that the minor party vote really changes that much. It's interesting, and it becomes relevant if a minor candidate gains some traction and starts polling over 5-10%, but in the races you mentioned I don't know of any evidence of that. (Interestingly, Rasmussen finds that if Lamont wrested the Dem nomination from Lieberman, he'd still win as an independent. That's very rare!)

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the Washington Post/ABC poll was propoganda. Frankly I doubt that. The Post editorial page has a number of weird quirks, like supporting the Iraq war and school vouchers, but that doesn't necessarily have any effect on its reporting or surveys. Don't you think they'd want to protect their credibility at measuring public opinion? I *can* see where the poll might have been rushed so it could be the first released on a hot new issue, and I did notice that it had a pretty small sample size (about 500). Though I found that poll stunning, and the Newsweek or USA Today 53-41 poll sounds more like what I'd want and expect, as far as I know these are the only 2 polls that have been released publicly on the issue. Either one could be an outlier; we don't know yet. I think more is attributable to sloppiness, rushing, irresponsibility, etc. than intentional, conspiratorial kind of efforts. The latter is generally pretty hard to pull off.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 15, 2006 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Duly noted. Thanks for the info and the clarification.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 14, 2006 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter

I think you've got me confused with RMill. we are in fact, 2 different people. So who's still confused lol

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 14, 2006 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I saw a poll that said it was actually 53%-41%, not 51%-43%. Don't remember which poll it was. It's only a 12-point spread instead of 8 who dissaprove, but it's still significant that there are now multiple polls showing how wrong and far off the ABC poll was.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 14, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!

Majority of Americans disapprove of NSA Phone Tracking Database. ( Only 43% supupport )

Poll just came out from USA Today :

By 51%-43%, those polled disapprove of the program, disclosed Thursday in USA TODAY. The National Security Agency has been collecting phone records from three of the nation's four largest telecommunication companies since soon after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Link at USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-14-nsa-reax-poll_x.htm

((( Please fire the idiot who did the ABC Poll that tried to tell us that the majority of Americans support the NSA Phone Tracking Database. I really find the ABC poll obscene to the point of almost being propaganda ! Is the Washington Post now going to run a retraction about the ABC poll being off ? )))

Posted by: Wells | May 14, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, RMIll. The point on minor candidates Sheeler and Young in RI is significant. The whole primary scenario is a "wild card" situation. They may not be the major players, but there are four months until that primary. How many lifetimes is that?

Excellent observations by OhioGuy on Sybil - uhh, Tina.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 14, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse

one of the remarkably different things that has us at odds with European Parliments is the lack of diversity...

the lack of differing viewpoints.

that being said a politician/candidate that has a different viewpoint doesn't have to get elected but by offering a different point of view,

may actually occaision/en courage relevant debate...


most of what passes for speechifying now a days is simply tryin to match your speech to what the pollsters say that you need to say........


that predicates a view based upon not _providing_ anything new to the discussion...


if the average intelligence quotient is 100 then you're writing and addressing their concerns, at least in your speech


rather than making sure that the salient points reach them...


to be a great kick-ess candidate nowdays would require you to open that box of whip-ess and to actually say something...


and simply step on the big and little endians......


destroying their rules of conduct....much like myself.


tha's wha ah laks tah doo...


I suggest someone in power, can _make_ a situation happen

by not allowing themselves to be led by conventional wisdom...

Harry Truman was an interesting fellow,

Mark Twain,

Theodore Roosevelt...in someways though I haven't revisted him

Abraham Lincoln

people that didn't dance to the tin horn of "political wisdom"

which often times is no more than political coercion of special interest...


step on them.

..


.

Posted by: regarding minor party politicians and candidates.. | May 14, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Repairman,

Something that is commonly overlooked are the thrid party candidates, mainly because they never win. However, as we have seen by the impacts of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, a decent candidate for a third party can take a large total of votes. These elections in the races I mentioned above are expected to be close, decided by a few votes. Its races like these where third party candidates can make a big difference.

The 2004 Senate race is good eveidence of this. Mel Martinez beat Betty Castor by less than 100,000 votes. Dennis Bradley, a VET candidate took in 165,909 votes and took more votes from Castor than he did Martinez.

In another race, and independant candidate took 6% of the vote. It may not be a lot, but in a close election, it can make all the difference. I'm not obsessed with them, but I understand that they do count in close elections.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 14, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Laura Bush does not believe those bad polls about her husband.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush said on Sunday she does not believe opinion polls showing her husband's approval ratings at record low levels.
Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she did not think people were losing confidence in President George W. Bush, despite a series of polls showing support for him at its lowest point in his five-year presidency and among the lowest for any president in the past 50 years.

"I don't really believe those polls. I travel around the country. I see people, I see their responses to my husband. I see their response to me," she said.

(My Comments:) Laura does not believe the "Vast Bad Poll Wing Conspiricy" trying to get her husband. Someone needs to give Laura Bush a reality check real quick. She is admitting that she creates her own fantasy world in her head - and nobody else "Out there in the Real World" can tell her differently. WOW

Posted by: Wells | May 14, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Che

It seems that the public and the media have a very short memory when it comes to what was Bush previosly said. What they are saying now about the phone tracking is a 180 from what they said a year ago. We went from tracking "people with terrorist links" to "all Americans". According to my math that is an increase in 280 million American Citizens. And this has been going on for 3 years and the American public didn't know about it (What are Journalist doing - obviously not their job ?). This is not what Bush said a year ago. Normal people would call this lying, but in the Bush White House unless you are under oath lying to the American people is the stanard practice. If you get caught, to them you were lying for National Security Purposes - I lied to protect you. ( What's next? I will rape you for your own good ? )

If you saw Colbert skit at the the White House Correspondence Dinner. He does a joke about it's the journalist job to just type what the White House tells them. It is starting to look like it was no joke - journalist have just been typing, not investigating(that to much work). A new book just came out called LAPDOG - How the media rolled over for Bush. It is definely worth a read.

Posted by: Wells | May 14, 2006 10:31 AM | Report abuse


FOR UNCENSORED NEWS PLEASE BOOKMARK:

WWW.WSWS.ORG
WWW.TAKINGAIM.INFO
WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM
OTHERSIDE123.BLOGSPOT.COM

SPREAD THE WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.unknownnews.org/0605190511NSAspying.html

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world"
Bush lied repeatedly about scope of NSA spying on Americans

by Leslie Cauley, USA Today

May 11, 2006

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA Today.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans -- most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.
Questions and answers
about the NSA record collection program
Filed under:
Lies from the Bush administration
Secret government in America
The war on freedom
But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made -- across town or across the country -- to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop -- without warrants -- on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the

For the rest of this article go to:

http://www.unknownnews.org/0605190511NSAspying.html

Posted by: che | May 14, 2006 5:52 AM | Report abuse

Here is Charlie Cook's latest set of Senate race rankings, released Friday. He lists 1 Democratic-held seat and 6 Republican-held seats as tossups. If all of them switched parties, the Senate would be 50-50 again.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_sen_ratings_may12.pdf

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 14, 2006 2:27 AM | Report abuse

RM, why are you so obsessed with minor party candidates?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 14, 2006 2:17 AM | Report abuse

A few things of little knowledge about these Senate races.


Tennessee, an Independant candidate running in this state is as conservative as they come. He claims the Republican party has become too moderate. Ed Choate, apparently running as a Libertarian, wants to form an American Christian Conservatibve Party in Tennessee so we know where he stands on the issues. Dr. Keplinger's, also running as an indpenedant, webiste mentions country gospel music so I'm edgining him toward the conservative section as well. This bodes good for Ford should Bryant or Van Hillery become the Republican nomination. These 3 candidates may not take many votes but any vote they do take can change the election.


Rhode Island, there are still 2 candidates aside from Whitehouse ni the Democratic Primary, Sheeler and Young, this may stop Dems from voting for Chaffee in the repub primary allowing Laffey to win, thus ensuring republican demise.

Missouri

Frank Gilmoure, a Libertarian candidate who has run for state senator twice is in the running, in a close election, he could put McCaskill over the top by taking votes away from Talent.

Montana Burns now has a real primary chalenger in Keenan, Kelliher isn't gonna put up much of a fight despite being the Green party nominee for Senate 4 years ago and Governor 2 years ago. Also, some Stan Jones guy is running as a Libertarian, again, if the election is close, Burns might get tossed by losing votes and money in a primary and to the Lib candidate.

Now I could go on about this, but these are the major races where republicans are losing, excpet PA where no other candidates are in the race cept Dem and Repub. Lets see who the first person to throw the Greens at me is, whoever it is better not mention Parker from the Independant Green's in Virginia, shes more conservative than anything. Even mentions the phrase fiscally conservative on her website.

Posted by: Robert Millette | May 14, 2006 1:55 AM | Report abuse

That funny !

Posted by: Wells | May 14, 2006 1:49 AM | Report abuse

PS I think Dick Cheney is in charge of shooting rich white Republicans. Is he coming to Indianapolis anytime soon?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 14, 2006 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh isn't much of a Democrat anyway. He should have no problem getting a job on K St.

I can't really speak to Gov. Daniels because I haven't been following his goings on in Indiana. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts (whatever that means) there's no way he drags a national Republican candidate for president under Bayh in Indiana.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 14, 2006 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Republicans control K street. Don't you remember Rep. Delay - K street Project. How can he get a job there as a democrat. Plus the next plum K street job goes to Rep Delay who resigns from congress June 6. Then maybe to jail for his crimes - who knows nowadays. With the repoublican motto - "Crime does Pay".

I like how you will not dare mention Indiana Republican Gov. Daniels and the disaster that he has become. WHY ? AFRAID ? CAN'T DEFEND HIM ? That's my point. Thanks you for making it for me by avoiding it. Daniels will drag down the republicans across the state. Daniels is why Republicans will vote Democrat. Daniels will do more for democrats in Indiana than Bayh ever could. Republicans should do themselves a favor and shoot Daniels before he spreads his unpopularity virus to them.

Posted by: Wells | May 13, 2006 10:21 PM | Report abuse

And the Republican takeover of both houses of the IN legislature? How is IN trending blue in presidential elections? It hasn't even been close since 1996. They'll reelect Bayh as senator just fine; they won't vote for him on a national ticket against a Republican.

Bayh is a shameless, spineless opportunist who disgraces his father's courageous progressive legacy. He belongs on K Street, not in public office.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 7:55 PM | Report abuse

To : Sandwich Repairman

I usaully agree with you, but not on Indiana. Indiana over the last year and half is trending blue. Republican thought they had it made when they got Gov. Daniels ( Prior Bush Employee at the White House) into the governor's mansion. But it has BACKFIRED the voters in Indiana HATE HIM, HATE HIM, did I mention HATE HIM. I not sure if its his connection to Bush or what, but Indiana voters like Daniels about as much as they like Saddam. Indiana's Republican Gov. Daniels poll numbers are in the 30s check Survey USA on Governors. When you factor in ground zero poll numbers for a Republican Gov in Indiana and Sky high poll numbers for a Dem Senator named Bayh - you are talking some serious flipping. Bayh as a VP of the 2008 president ticket would be the play of the year and cause Indiana to go blue in 2008. Bayh is my personal favorite for VP in 2008 - I think he might be a little to green for Prez. But, lets see how he does over the next few years.

Posted by: Wells | May 13, 2006 7:39 PM | Report abuse

over in "the debate," it was with chris and sandy k.

but they seemed to be administration shills that were doing...


"data planting"


as opposed to data mining...


there's someone named Archimedes that does that in "Early Warning"


I personally would like to talk to "George Will," in public on a national talk show, in order to penetrate his thick demeanonr of nonsensical removal from pertinence.

.

I hate theorists that have never actually _lived_ a life before....academics..


I'd also like to kick Bill O'Reilly around the parking lot of conversation too....tell him that....he's already in the handicapped spot....parked illegally, I'll heal him!

.

Posted by: actually there's the same problem.. | May 13, 2006 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me , or has anybody else noticed that "Tina" sounds a lot like "sara" who sounds a lot like "karen" and now all of a sudden there is this "Sam" person who I don't ever recall seeing posting on here before, coming to the defense of Tina. Hmmmmm.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the similaritites between all of these people is very striking. They all make the exact same nonsense arguments, and all of them display the same violently allergic reaction to facts and evidence. Go back and read these peoples' posts. They all smell like the same person to me.

I wouldn't be very surprised if all the names are from the same person who posts under many different names to make it seem as if there are multiple people who agree with him/her. Call it a silly conspiracy theory, but all the tired lies and bogus claims these people throw out are so strikingly similar I can't believe that multiple educated people who post on the same blog would all happen to take these positions. And who uses a short, presumably REAl name when they post on a blog anyways? Ohio guy, Sandwich Repairman, Nor'Easter, Populist Dem, Judge, Intrepid Liberal, RMill, Caped Composer...those all sound like blogging pseudonyms. But Tina, sara, sam, karen????.....this smells

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 13, 2006 7:13 PM | Report abuse

*Correction: IN hasn't voted Democratic since 1964, LBJ. Evan Bayh wouldn't even be able to carry the state.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I don't see why we'd bother trying to win Indiana. It hasn't voted Republican since 1964.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 6:57 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats can and most likely will win in Rhode Island, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Montana, and Missouri. I say they have a fighting chance to win in Ohio, and Tennesse. In Ohio there are a good portion of registered Democrats not that many less than Republicans. If the GOP stays home being pissed off at DeWine for bucking from the party on several issues and Brown offers smart solutions to problems facing up Ohio, taking up several liberal issues such as labor, and excites his base by offering some Taft and Bush bashing he can get the turnout to beat DeWine. Brown may be able to keep pace with DeWine in the Independents race who want change and pissed off at Bush and Taft. If Brown gets his base to turn out in large numbers, and keeps pace with Independents he can win his race. Ford, is very smart, has high name recognition, a moderate conservative Blue Dog Democrat, plus the anti-Gop climate, which could add up to a Ford win. I am a moderate Independent, but after all the Republican scandals, failures, and Bush's incompetence has me wanting the Democrats to take over congress and the presidency in 2008. I voted for several Republicans in the past, perhaps more so than I voted for Dems and I am sickened by the Republican Party right now. They are not the Republican Party of Ronald R. of small gov., personal responsibility, and fiscal discipline. I bucked from the Demcrats for these issues, but now after all this it seems the Democrats are the party of small gov. personal responsibility, and fiscal discipline. I am from Indiana and will vote for one of the only sane Republicans in the Senate Richard Lugar this year. In 2008, I hope the Democrats are smart and nominate a Evan Bayh type Democrat because I am leaning their way already unless they nominate Hillary.

Posted by: Josh | May 13, 2006 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Can Sherrod Brown beat Mike Dewine? Yes, aslong as our turnout is good. Is the odds against Brown? Yes. Would Brown been more likely to be DeWine than say Hackett? No. As a Ohioan, I know that even here in Southern Ohio the GOP is becoming more and more unpopular and Ted Strickland's winning his race is coming more and more probable. Unlike moderate Ted Strickland who is an ex-pastor, Brown is more liberal and will get tide as an outsider and DeWine a reasonable moderate. Sadly, Hackett who would have the NRA endorsment and able to court alot of voters pissed at DeWine is not our nominee. I am going to work hard to get Brown elected, as well as Strickland. I will work harder for Strickland because his candidacy is more important for Dems locally and will help us pull Ohio in 2008. Brown who has a uphill climb who can and might win, but it is going to take a lot of hardwork.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | May 13, 2006 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Lincoln won with 39% of the vote, so? He ran against Douglas, a northern Democrat, John Breckinridge, a southern pro-slavery Democrat, and also John Bell, of the Constitutional party. The election pie was cut into 4 pieces, and fortunately for our nation, Abe won in 1860. He was also lucky to have been elected to a 2nd term during war against a disgruntled general named McClellan, a Democrat. There were also less states in the Union to hold an election.
Our system of elections is based on state by state winner take all (except for the Maine and Nebraska which divides up according to Congressional district wins)
Our founders were brilliant, they understood how to end the gridlock on election day by blocking run off elections and also blocking mob-rule by the national vote. Only big states would be influencing the presidential vote if they were allowed to put their millions of voters up against the low population states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming, and the Dakota states. Our president would be elected by the East Coast and the West Coast, and ignore what the Democrats call "fly over country".

Posted by: Scott | May 13, 2006 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Sorry dude, the NTSB investigation found that weather played no role in the Wellstone plane crash.

If Tina has touched a nerve of truth, where is it? Where are the facts? The quotes? The statistics? All on our side, apparently, because you haven't given any either! When you make ridiculous claims, you should fully expect that people will offer contradictory evidence disproving them. I notice that, like Tina, you offer no argument to counter any of the facts I and other posters here have offered. Rather, you ask us to lay off her because she's holding her own. Interesting contradiction there.

May I ask you to mind your facts, Sam? Where exactly did anyone do anything that wasn't minding their manners? Suggesting that we should be bound by facts and rational thought?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I think the little lady named Tina has been holding her own in here boys. I live in Minnesota, regretted the loss of Senator Paul Wellstone, but he flew in a snowstorm. Why did the Democrats try to create a some evil plan was out there to blow up his plane? Don't call me silly, it was discussing in the Minnesota newspapers, investigated, and reported the pilot should not have been flying, even in good weather.
I think the anger in here from the Democrats lashing out at Tina must mean she has touched a nerve of truth.
If a Republican congressman like Mark Kennedy is Mark Kennedy would be nothing but a rubber stamp for Bush, well, I guess when Democrats voted for all the stuff during the Clinton Adminstration, they were rubber stamps too? It is called being a politican, folks when you elect a Democrat, you get a person who blocks the President. When you elect a Republican, more or less, they usually try to help President Bush. That is what we will decide on election day, whether to add Democrats for more gridlock or send a few more Republicans to end it. That is what the 2006 election will be about. I am just glad a few women come in here to debate the issues with you guys. May I ask you boys to mind your manners?

Posted by: Sam | May 13, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Looks like 53% oppose the data mining effort while 41% support it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 5:53 PM | Report abuse

ErrinF, can you post the data from the Newsweek poll here?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

A new Newsweek poll which took twice as long and included twice as many Americans shows that a mjority DO NOT support the NSA datamining. That Washington Post ABC poll was only done on roughly 500 Americans and was done in less than a day... unlike most polls which take 2 to 4 days and include at least 1000 people. That such a push poll came out so quickly after a supposedly random 'leak' is evidence of the amount of collusion and choreography that goes on between the Bush administration and the mainstream media. That poll was made to shape public opinion, not to accurately assess the public's view on the NSA datamining program.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 13, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse


http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

May 12, 2006 -- GOP Scandal Scorecard Updated with Republican Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher's indictment late yesterday on 3 counts. He joins fellow GOP Governor Bob Taft of Ohio in the criminal docket.
The Republican governor's criminal chain gang gets a little longer. Kentucky's Fletcher (right) joins Ohio's Taft (left) in criminal court. An idea for the location of the next Republican National Convention: Alcatraz.

Posted by: che | May 13, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Yup, that's true about Perot's effect. All the studies on his candidacy found that he pulled equally from Bush and Clinton. If you look at voter turnout rates in presidential elections, you can see how he boosted it to 55% in 1992, from about 50% in 1988. It was 49% in 1996 and 51% in 2000.

I love how Republicans complain about Clinton winning the presidency with 43% in 1992. Would it have been more democratic for Bush to win with his 38%?? Have they forgotten that Nixon won in 1968 with 43%? Or that Bush II LOST the popular vote in 2000 when he got 48% to Gore's 49%? You know, Lincoln took the presidency in 1860 with just 39% of the vote. Which is 10 points higher than Bush's current approval rating!

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

US media, Democrats deflect opposition to government spying on Americans

By Barry Grey
13 May 2006

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

One day after the revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly compiling a data base of the telephone calls of some 200 million Americans, the response from the media and both Democratic and Republican politicians already makes clear that there will be no serious opposition from within the political establishment to this further step in the direction of a police state.

On Friday, as General Michael Hayden, who presided over the NSA spying program as head of the agency from 1999 to 2005, made the rounds of Senate offices in advance of next week's confirmation hearings on his nomination to head the CIA, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, praised him as "a good man" and declared, "I have no problems with General Hayden going into the hearing."

Reid, along with other top Democrats in Congress, was well aware of the NSA's domestic spying program, having been briefed along with leading Republicans by the Bush administration.

As for the media, it did not take long after USA Today published its May 11 exposé on the spying operation for the networks and press to begin their efforts to confuse and disorient the American people and condition them to accept this unprecedented attack on democratic rights.

The Washington Post led the way, publishing as the lead article on its web site early Friday the results of an overnight poll conducted jointly by the Post and ABC News. The survey purported to show that 63 percent of Americans supported the NSA domestic spying operation that was authorized by President Bush shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Under the program, the three largest US telecommunications companies--AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth--are handing over to the NSA the records of every telephone call made by every one of their customers, including the date, the duration of the call and the phone number dialed. This is being done without securing court warrants and without Congressional oversight, in flagrant violation of both the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and federal statutes.

The existence of the program exposes as lies previous statements made by Bush and Hayden, following last December's exposure of a secret NSA program to intercept and monitor international telephone calls and emails. At that time, Bush and Hayden said that the NSA was targeting only communications from or to countries outside the US and strictly limiting the spying to communications involving known terrorist suspects.

Beneath the headline "Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts," the

FOR THE REST GO TO:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/phon-m13.shtml

Posted by: CHE | May 13, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Tina:

Address ANY of the points I and others have made about Minnesota. For example:

* the significant lead Hatch has against Pawlenty in the Gubenatorial race right now.
* The lead that Klobuchar has over Kennedy RIGHT now even though Kennedy has higher name recognition.

*The fact that Kennedy almost lost two years ago against a first time candidate in a conservative district.

*The Dems taking over the State House in 2004 and almost taking back the State Senate.

* Bush's incredibly low approval numbers within the state right now

* Gore/Kerry + Green Votes adding up to almost a 200,000 vote edge even during 2000 and 2004 when Bush was actually somewhat popular.

Do you want to address any of those issues? I'm guessing not, but I'd be interested to see you try. A

lso, as far as your Perot crying goes I would note that a study of the issue found that Perot took EXACTLY the same number of votes from Clinton as from Bush I. The breakdown of perot votes was 1/3 Clinton, 1/3 Bush, and 1/3 who otherwise simply would not have voted. So Perot had ZERO effect in Clinton winning either election.

Posted by: Colin | May 13, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Fortunately, they are very charitable on typos.

Make that "the party line."

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 13, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Easy guys. Tina's "out there without a net" enough already. What Tina said was "...and she went bankrupt after the stock sank." Not that Cantwell filed for bankruptcy.

That is not uncommon use of the language for somebody who goes broke. As soon as she was challenged on that a lot of time was spent started talking past each other, quibbling.

Did Cantwell actually "go broke"? Doesn't sound as if she did.

Did she lose a lot of money? Yup! Just like many of the rest of us in the Dot.Com Bust.

Does that make her a bad manager or a bad person? Nope! Just in the wrong business at the wrong time.

Tina, you should realize that your implications could be just as easily used on the Bush family in business! Want to talk about "bad business people," let's discuss George H. W., George W. and the inimitable Neal Bush.

There seems to be enough of a Truth Squad [The RNC doesn't have that copyrighted, do they?] in the blog, that Tina can't get away with playing fast and loose without being quickly corrected.

This is a tough group on facts and how they are used, Tina. Everybody here has the Internet at their fingertips. Any spinning gets stopped immediately.

Give Tina some credit though. At least she is not simply "bashing" with all of the tired old epithets that the people at the far ends of the political spectrum use.

Tina, if you have good ideas, talking points and facts, most of this group acknowledges it. But, they savage "the arty line."

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 13, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Bush won Iowa by 10,000 votes. Yes, that is correct. The point is that Bush won the state and the electoral votes."

Yes, Tina, so if Bush won in Iowa by only 10,000 then why are you saying that Minnesota is so red when it voted for Kerry by 100,000 votes? You take hypocrisy to a new height.

Oh, and I love how you don't respond to any of the facts that were leveled at you about Minnesota or Maria Cantwell. It's not lost on anyone that you just rant and rave without respond to any facts.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 13, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I love how Tina has ignored all the myriad comments here pointing out her errors and dispelling her earlier idiotic claims. If at first you're proven wrong, change, change the subject! Cantwell had $40M, not $10M. She never declared bankruptcy, as Tina claimed (while castigating Democrats for being the ones not to check their facts), and NONE of this has any bearing on her ability to win reelection in 2006!

Linda, that was my point! Lie and misrepresent the Wellstone funeral as you will (I was there), there won't be one in 2008. It was a fluke, and it ain't happening again. Coleman will be outta there. There's no other way he would have gotten in in 2002. Are you proud to support an alcoholic womanizer whose wife lives in California? Is that your idea of "family values"?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 1:32 PM | Report abuse

did you say something?


what are you implying?


you're not being clear enough


maybe it's too simple for you: it's just that there's an implication that the current NSA is not just monitoring the _flow_ of the ocean of information....

which is what Bush's NSA, which is different than the _real_ NSA, said...flow

they're monitoring the lives of fish, whales, squids, seaweed, temperature, color of the sand, ecologies of interactions in all communities, they're listening in on all conversations that they have access to...


teenage girls and boys talking about sexual discovery, old people dying talking to loved ones from a hospital bed, your mother arguing with your father, preists talking to parishoners....

things that are normally regarded as private conversations....whatever they want to....


they are not offering any proof of what they are doing....


your own Mr. Goneshillazzzzz refused to take oath when he testified about what they were doing....while he grinned like a drunk coyote....and you want _us_ to trust these losers....Mr. Cokehead....


Saudis/UAE people flew the planes that purportedly were "attacking" the United States....who are bushs' family friends?

who was he trying to give the Ports deal to?


can you count? 1+1 = 2, 1+ 2 = 3,

can you make simple connections?


did you know Poppy was involved in the CIA and Mafia in the early 50's and oil? Did you know that his uncle lost a plantation when Castro took over Cuba? When did McCarthy start barking about Communism? And why was it important to the average Joe? It wasn't it was important to rich people, who didn't want to lose their...no it was about reiche people that didn't want to share.......we got McCarthyism, so they didn't have to worry....it's not about the people it's about a special class...

your United States Royalty...monied.

.

Posted by: Dear thoughtful readers.... | May 13, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Yes, They took the NSA phone database poll way to early before the public could get their arms around the issue. I am positive ; if they took a new poll today the majority of the public would be against a NSA National Phone Taracking Databse that tracks phone call that Americans make. This Poll was Fraud. The American public does not even support a National ID Card much less a NSA National Phone Tracking Database. There is something funny with this Poll. My gut does not feel right about the spin on this poll. I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA tampered with the poll numbers.

Posted by: Polling Fraud | May 13, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Sandwich Repairman, Norm Coleman was elected because the people of Minnesota were disgusted by the Democrats turning a funeral for Paul Wellstone into a political circus, booing Ventura (who walked out) booing Republican from Congress who came to pay respect to a member of the Senate. That is more than a fluke, it was voters smacking the Democrats across the face for acting like noisy children in a church running up the down the aisles. And Cspan carried it LIVE for the entire nation to see Democrats at their worst moblike role. Walter Mondale was put on the ballot after Wellstone died in a snowstorm in October. Walter Mondale lacked the support of the young voters who only saw an old man begging for votes.
Good manners and politics do not seem to go together anymore, but Minnesota might be an example of why the Democrats lost that Wellstone seat. Dayton has lost support for his antics and that is why he is stepping down after 6 years, he faced rejection by the voters.

Posted by: Linda | May 13, 2006 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Bush won Iowa by 10,000 votes. Yes, that is correct. The point is that Bush won the state and the electoral votes. That is the system we use in the US to select the President, not who got the most votes. Nader helped Bush win states in 2000, and I would think the Democrats would be angry at Nader instead of giving him credit to helping to defeat Gore. (I call it the revenge for Ross Perot taking 19% of the national vote and helping Clinton win the electoral college only 43% of the national vote in 1992 and 48% in 1996)

Kerry was not a strong leader, and he got the ANYBODY BUT BUSH vote, showing that anger is not a good motivator for electing any politican.

Maria Cantwell did not have to offically declare bankrupty in order to be broke, so the Democrats can defend that point as much as they want, but the fact of the debate is that she needed to beg, borrow, and find Democrats who could help during her ordeal.
To go from being worth $10 million down to $1 million with a debt to pay back for financing your Senate race is a huge monkey on any person's back.
Senator Elizabeth Dole was smart to find wealthy Republicans to challenge Democrats who used their own wealth to win their seats. Look at Corzine in New Jersey, he spent $60 million of his own bucks to win the seat in 2000, Dayton spend millions of his own Dayton Clothing Store empire bucks, Bob Graham is also a wealthy man from Florida who stepped down from office in 2004 but used his millions to finance his seat, as well as another wealthy Democrat Jay Rockefeller, from the dirty Big Oil empire. (explain that one to us, Democrats, why is he a member of your party if Big Oil is so disgusting and vile?)

Nancy Pelosi is worth over $10 million, Diane Feinstein is worth millions. So why are the Democrats complaining about rich people? Are they so full of self-guilt that they are embarrassed by their millions? It is difficult to understand when the Democrats complain about rich people yet they love George Soros and his $20 million to try to defeat Bush in 2004. Steven Bing donated millions, the Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles creator donated millions to Democrats. And Moveon.org was created and financed by Wes Boyd and his wife with their millions. So I think we need to start a debate about the hypocrisy of rich Democrats who use class warfare to create a wedge issue to win. Ted Kennedy used his millions to hang onto power, clobber Republicans.

Posted by: Tina | May 13, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I forgot some more of the puzzle pieces.

Let me add to my list.

7) CIA secret prisons in Europe.
8) Porter Goss resigns(fired) the day before European Officail visit the White House to investigate the CIA Secret Prisons in Europe. (How convient - I can't answer your question are CIA director no longer works for us.)
9) They blame the leak on the CIA Secret Prisons in Europe on some lady that worked at the CIA for 20 years. As they are dragging her out of the building she screaming she didn't do it. Framed ? Scapegoated ?
10) Looks like we really get the leaker so who leaked. ( Maybe Negroponte(NSA) leaked CIA prisons in Europe so that he could get Goss fired, and then put in his own puppet in charge of the CIA ( Hayden ) )

I better be careful what I say. I think. I saw this in a Movie before called "The Pelican Brief".

All these stories are interconnected, but no one in the media has the balls to connect the dots. Wouldn't be first time we didn't connect the dots.

It is kind of what they do on Top Secret Projects - where they break it up into pieces so that you can't see the big picture - The Whole Picture. ( Standard Intelligence Procedure )

Posted by: Wells | May 13, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I AGREE !

1) CIA Porter Goss resigns(truth fired)
2) NSA fighting for power with the CIA
3) Secret Phone Databases at the NSA on Americans
4) Hayden who worked for Negroponte(IN charge of the NSA) pushes for Hayden to be put in charge of the CIA.
5) CIA number 3 tries to quits when they fire Porter Goss.
6) FBI search CIA number 3 house and seize his computer.

IT SMELLS !

There is a real story in there somewhere we just haven't been told the truth yet - maybe never will. The Washington Post needs to get back to Investigative Journalism.

Posted by: Wells | May 13, 2006 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I was just noticing on another blog that

someone implied that maybe what we needed to "learn our lesson"


was to have another terrorist attack occur....

maybe someone on the inside


can't hold their water


and they are bragging to us...

our own country could be planning a terrorist attack against us to garner credibility...for a failing administration numbers....

I urge anyone in government service to not let Americans be killed as part of some political ploy to keep the Bush family in power...


do not let them kill your country men, because you don't have balls,

just say no.


.

.thanks.

.

just say no to crime, arrest the bush family...today,

take a bite out of crime, have a country you can be proud of...

thanks so much you r mother loves yah...

.

here and now there is another thing going on...


Posted by: something going on here and now... | May 13, 2006 2:25 AM | Report abuse

parties were important...

when everyone knows that the votes are flavored in congress...


why did Kerry let Bush win? what did he get?


and why is the Washington Post pushing Hayden up to the point of masquerading

"former CIA agent, Peter Brookes" as an unpredjudiced opinon

when he served under Rumsfeld, and is friends with him


and Dana Preist speaks out in favor of Hayden, saying that he will rein in Rumsfeld, when he's a former Rumsfeld agent?


is there any spin going on here?


sure, and you people are right on top of it too...

"The lure of absolute power tempts everyone in power, whatever their political stripe."


things happen in degrees.


the Patriot Act is the rape of the Bill of Rights.

do you disagree?


this paper printed that the majority of people are "okay"

with having their phone calls intercepted, as long as it's for terrorists....


what effing terrorists?


12 to 20 Million Mexicans have entered the United States


ANY ONE OF THEM COULD HAVE BEEN AN ARABIC TERRORIST....


but weren't.


the 9/11 Commission said that this administrations _inaction_ on addressing terrorists threats "bordered on the criminal,"


why are the borders guarded and why have there been no _real_ action on terrorists?


because _WE_ are the terrorists...


Peter Brookes, who stood up for Hayden as a former CIA man is also a Rumsfeld man....

the same man that Dana Preist, acting as a Washington Post disinformation agent for your country...and I know that she leaked about secret prisons...who cares...she plants information so that she appears to be a credible source....he walk doesn't match that....she _never_ openly speaks against this administration....

as an authority if she cared about her country she would....


IN FACT THE ECONOMY IS A GREATER NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE THAN ANY ARABIC COUNTRY...


and that's being discussed a lot isn't it?


and the fastest way to stop illegal aliens,


arrest the people that hire, them starting with Congress people, the Judicial Branch and system, and the Executive branch of the Federal government....


ZERO TOLERANCE for Federales hiring _illegal_ aliens....


check all of the ranches, and owned properties of FEDERAL PEOPLE....

if you can't obey the laws of this country, then you shouldn't have the option of affecting, creating, or passing laws...

because you're sure not capable of putting other people first....


.

.


Posted by: and why is it so clever to frame things as if | May 13, 2006 1:52 AM | Report abuse

Not only did Cantwell take out a three-term incumbent in 2000, she did so in less than 2 months. WA's primary is in mid-September, and Cantwell didn't have the Democratic nomination (then-Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn was also competing for it) until then.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 13, 2006 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I belive Iowa is the only Dukakis state that has ever voted for GWB.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Tina, you want to look at states that were close, try Iowa, Bush beat Kerry by 10,000 votes.

I love how she says Minnesota is close but dismisses Iowa

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 12, 2006 11:24 PM | Report abuse

To: Tina

Maria Cantwell in SAFE in Washington.

Yes, she won by 2000 votes in 2000, but finish the story. She took out a senior incumbent sitting Senator. Do you know how hard that is ? She gets + 4 points just out of the gate for pulling that off. I predict that Maria Cantwell wins by +5 or more in November. Tina if you want to bet money - we can talk.

The only reason why this race is on the radar in because of the fueding in the Washington Governor race last November 2004 - Nasty. Which appears to be dying down now - according to Survey USA which shows the Washington Governor Chris Gregoire polls numbers are on the up and up now.

Posted by: Wells | May 12, 2006 11:21 PM | Report abuse

And here are the results of Minnesota's 2000 presidential vote. Gore beat Bush by 57,000 votes with Nader pulling an additional 127,000.

http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20001107/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=P&P=A

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Tina said, "Colin, look at the 2004 election, Minnesota was only a few thousand short of going to Bush..."

A few thousand short??? Try ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. Gosh, Tina, who's the one not checking their facts again? That's the fun thing about being a conservative; you never have to let a fact get in the way of your ideology.

http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20041102/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=ALL&P=A

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 11:03 PM | Report abuse

The only reason MN has been close in recent presidential elections is because of the strength of the Green Party there.

Norm Coleman's election was a fluke related to the sudden death of Paul Wellstone. Minnesotans know he has no integrity and sells his votes (e.g. endorsing Wellstone in 96 before running against him in 02, or announcing he would've voted for ANWR if Bush gave him more). They know he has a sham marriage, is an alcoholic, and hits on college-age women. They know--every damn time he opens his mouth--that he is a New Yorker, not a Minnesotan.

It's already been pointed out that Klobuchar leads Kennedy and Hatch leads Pawlenty in the polls. Pawlenty has made quite a mess for himself! You will be lucky to hold on to Mark Kennedy's and John Kline's House seats.

Yes, Cantwell's stock did lose a lot of value, like everyone else who has stock, when the dot com bubble burst. She lost MUCH of her fortune, not ALL of it. At no time did she ever declare bankruptcy. That claim is simply and utterly false. I might as well say that Rick Santorum's head is made of green cheese; it's equally truthful. And equally relevant to Cantwell's vulnerability in this fall's election.

George Bush LOST the 2000 election but still won in 2004. The closeness of Cantwell's 2000 win doesn't matter now. The state just re-elected Patty Murray and voted for Kerry for president (as it did for Gore in 2000, Clinton in 1992 and 96, and Dukakis in 1988). Besides, the DSCC has twice as much cash on hand as the NRSC. Cantwell has little to worry about.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 10:56 PM | Report abuse

"The Democrats come in here and think they own the place and refuse to present any evidence to back up their claims."

Fact #1: Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch is leading Gov. Pawlenty by 11 points in the polls right now and he hasn't even won the primary yet - but he will.

Fact #2: Mark Kennedy would be nothing but a rubber stamp for Bush - and the blue state of Minnesota is not going to elect a Bushbot as evidenced by the latest poll showing Amy Klobuchar with a 43% - 40% lead. Not much, but she has lead in almost every poll and Kennedy's efforts to fool the voters into thinking he is an independent while taking millions from Cheney and Bush (Fact #3) will fail.

Tina - Do you have anything (evidence, maybe?) to suggest Maria Cantwell is vulnerable besides her slim margin of victory from six years ago? Probably not. The last poll I saw had Cantwell ahead of Mike McGavick by 29 points, not to mention her money lead. 29 points - yeh, she really sounds vulnerable to me. If you have any current facts that suggest she is vulnerable, please let me know.

And by the way, what do her personal financial problems have to do with her reelection effort in the first place? Unless there is some evidence that she did something wrong/illegal, you sound like nothing more than another foaming-at-the-mouth wingnut trying to smear a Democrat b/c you can't beat her at the ballot box.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 12, 2006 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Colin, look at the 2004 election, Minnesota was only a few thousand short of going to Bush, and Bush also won Iowa. Minnesota has lost the Democrat edge with the GOP governor, and they have Norm Coleman as well. Mark Kennedy will win the state.

On the issue of Maria Cantwell being bankrupt, go back and read some newspapers from early 2001. She lost her entire fortune because her Real Network stock went down to 10 cents on every dollar. Her $10 million is stock was used to bankroll her Senate race, and when the stock got wiped out, it was 90% less in value. She lost the money, that is a fact and anybody who paid attention to what was going on in her financial world would understand it. That is why Hillary held a fundraiser for Maria to help pay off her debt.
The Democrats come in here and think they own the place and refuse to present any evidence to back up their claims. Maria won her Senate seat in 2000 by only 2,200 votes, and today she has a challenger on the GOP side who has millions of his own to advertise how he will be a better Senator than she has ever been. That will be the debate for the next 6 months. The voters in Washington state will decide if they want Maria to keep her seat or not.

Posted by: Tina | May 12, 2006 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Was anybody else laboring under the illusion that Katherine Harris was an incumbent like me?! You mean we're not GAINING a seat when she loses? It turns out that we are not going to unseat her in November(b/c she isn't in the Senate right now -
GASP!), rather us Dems have been so ecstatic about her candidacy b/c she has a snowball's chance in hell of unseating the potentially vulnerable CURRENT Senator, a Democrat by the name of Bill Nelson(I know, i'd never heard of him either). Whew!

I don't know about the rest of my fellow braindead dems, but I am sure am thankful we have our very own 'King Of Obvious S*** That Everyone Already Knows' here to set us straight!

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 12, 2006 7:56 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans and Democrats have little in common with their namesakes in 1867, but the KKK of today has even less in common with the KKK of 1867. It's not even the same organization (just a later creation that took the name of the earlier one).

Posted by: Staley | May 12, 2006 7:13 PM | Report abuse

To: King of Zouk

Be careful what you say about RINO Republicans in Name Only. They are the only thing keeping republicans in control on the senate today. Peolple like you are the reason Sen Jeffords from Vermont turned his back of republicans.

Without RINO republicans the republicans would not control the Senate today.
The RINOs are
1) Chafee RI
2) Snowe Maine
3) Smith Oregon
4) Specter Penn.
5) Collins Maine

( So be careful what you wish for! )

Posted by: Wells | May 12, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Why is the topic of the KKK in SWOH significant? This has come up more than once, but no numbers are ever provided to show the significance of the Klan there, or its impact in political races. If it indeed has any.

Viva may be accurate with the date and location (1867 in Pulaski, TN) for the founding of the Klan, but it's a red-herring. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans should be tarred with that one. The parties of 140 years ago have little resemblance to their namesakes today. It is "apples and oranges." Actually Viva, a Whig was Governor of Tennessee in 1867.

Posted by: RI Native in DC | May 12, 2006 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Harris is not a net gain for you Dems. Maybe she won't win but to win the Senate you need to win seats that are now R. don't see it happening and as a result, another judge for us.
Have you seen what kind of Democrat wins in VA? they don't even tell people that they are Dems. they run on R issues. Have you seen a NY R? same thing. can't say I would miss that RINO Chafee one bit. the minute he can tilt the balance, he will Benedict like that dumb old Jeffords did.
does anyone acknowledge the historical reelction rate for the Senate and house? It is a stretch to imagine that either will switch hands. Basing your opinion on polls this far out and manipulated by the media is a fool's errand. But you all have misunderestimated before.

Posted by: king of zouk | May 12, 2006 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Caped Composer - I fail to see how the republicans have the gay marriage wedge issue to fall back on this fall in Ohio. They already used that issue in 2004. I guess you could be talking about how Dewine recently flip-flopped on the issue of supporting a constitutional amendment. I lost what little respect I had for him when he did that - all he does now is hump the conservative base's leg like a scared little puppy. How pathetic.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 12, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

To: willowy1

You have a very, very good eye. I caught that too. It was weird. Ford was smiling from ear to ear. He got so chummy with Bush I thought he was going to give him a hug. It was definitely creepy.

I am glad. I am not the only political nerd out there that watches the "State of the Unions".

Posted by: Wells | May 12, 2006 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure that Chris is right that the PA Senate race is bound to close. Santorum has a lot of explaining to do about so many issues and Casey is a very popular politician. Considering that this may be a strong Democratic year, a 10 point Casey victory may be possible. He has strength in Pittsburgh and Scranton, not just in normally Democratic Philadelphia.

Posted by: Jeremy | May 12, 2006 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm enjoying the Harris show immensely also. We have a good one here too in the New York senate race, where Hillary's opponents are John Spencer, an admitted bigamist, who had two children with his mistress while still married to his wife. He clearly values families -- he has so many of them.

The other winner is another Katherine -- Troia McFarland, also a winger nutjob, who claims Hillary spies on her through her bedroom window -- from a black helicopter. It's precious. I don't know how Hillary is so blessed as to have such blithering opponents. But maybe that's just the state of the Repug party today.

Posted by: Drindl | May 12, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

In addition to failing to respond to ANY of my 4 points, Viva now adds to his lack of credibility the claim that the KKK is Democratic. I guess that would explain why he found it so slanderous that I would point out the FACT that the KKK's base in Ohio is in the SW part of the state!

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Larry, as much as I wish your predictions for Ohio were true, I'm afraid that the trigger issues of social conservatism will win out for the time being. True, Ohio's economy has been hard-hit by all the outsourcing that's been going on, but the Republicans always have the abortion/gay marriage wedges to fall back on. When I say Ohio is conservative, what I mean is, these same old hair-trigger issues can swing statewide elections there. And, while it is true that the large cities are blue (as most large cities tend to be,) the thing is, Ohio isn't a "one-city state," in which the largest city carries the state (examples of "one-city states" are New York and Illinois; upstate New York and downstate Illinois are just as socially conservative as anything you'll find in the south or the plains. But because New York City and Chicago are so big, they have the capacity to override the red votes elsewhere in the state.) So, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo might be blue, but they're not big enough to counter the redness of the other parts of the state (including Cincinnati.)

Now, Ted Strickland might be able to pull out a victory against Blackwell, largely because of Blackwell's connection to Taft. But my money is not on Sherrod Brown ousting Mike DeWine. Maybe if Paul Hackett hadn't been shoehorned from the race . . .

Posted by: The Caped Composer | May 12, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I used to really like Ford, but I had to rethink things when he almost threw his arm out patting Bush on the back after this year's SOTU. It reminded me so much of McCain that I got ill.

Posted by: willowy1 | May 12, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

If Claire McCaskill directly took money from Hillary Clinton, the GOP and Kit Bond would be all over it (Talent would write a letter to the Pat Robertson lovers telling them how much Hillary and Claire are one in the same).

Sara you wrote, "But Claire is on record for complaining, and I wonder if she was even invited?"

If McCaskill was invited, which I don't know and really can't speculate (which you are so good at), I would have told her NOT to show up. She has an election to win in Missouri and the Talent/Rove camp will be climbing out from under their rocks real soon to attack.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Look at what just came out a few minutes ago:

Rasmussen poll(still behind firewall):

Rep. Sherrod Brown(D) - 44%
Sen. Mike Dewine (R) - 41%

This is the first lead for Brown and Dewine has lost support in the last four polls straight.

Sara - Do you have anything to suggest Maria Cantwell is vulnerable besides her margin of victory from six years ago? Probably not. The last poll I saw had ahead of Mike McGavick by 29 points, not to mention her money lead. If you have any current facts that suggest she is vulnerable, please let me know.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 12, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

wells -

Awesome! Thanks for the info. Time to pop some champagne everybody! I'm really gonna enjoy watching the freak show that is Katherine Harris for the next six months.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 12, 2006 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Mike Dewine is anything but a lock for reelection. True, most of his political problems are not of his own doing, but I fail to see how that matters and how it that has ever mattered in politics for that matter.

First of all, Mike Dewine has taken MILLIONS from George Bush and Dick Cheney, which will make it extremely easy for Brown to tie Dewine to Mr. 29% Approval. Actually, if you take away the money from Bush and Cheney, Dewine and Brown would be even in money right now.

The minimum wage increase amendment on the Ohio ballot this fall will be even more helpful to dems across the state than the gay marriage amendment was to republicans. Republicans don't see this coming and it's gonna hit them like a brick wall. Brown will wrap himself around this issue just like Colorado and Washington dems did and it worked out great for them.

Finally, while the Senate race would be very close on it's own, the governor's race will not be close. Strickland is destroying Blackwell in the polls and his leads are only going to grow when Ohio finds out what an extreme right-wing partisan Blackwell is. Ohio does not elect idealogues from either party. When Ohioans are reminded that Blackwell is the man responsible for handing Ohio to George Bush in '04, they will despise him. His poll numbers are even lower in Ohio than nationally. The coattails of Strickland's victory will be of huge help to Brown.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 12, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

To: Ohio Guy

I happen to live in Florida.

And I have been waiting a long time to watch Katherine Harris self-destruct. It was definely worth the wait. HA HA HA !

I only ask God for one more favor - that one of Katherine Harris fake boobs falls off a campaign rally. Then I can die happy.

Posted by: wells | May 12, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

And why did the formerly Dem south go Republican? Because you racists hated the Dem civil rights bill. Shame on you for twisting the facts. Ohio a very conservative state? That is laughable. Is that why the Reps had to cheat to win Ohio for Bush in 2004? DeWine and Blackwell will suffer a stunning defeat in OH. Dems have huge majorities in the northeast part of the state and all the many big cities here. Ohio will be Blue for many years to come due to Rep incompetence and corruption. Case closed!

Posted by: Larry | May 12, 2006 3:40 PM | Report abuse

To: Ohio Guy

I read that the cut off in Florida is at 12 noon. Republicans are stuck with Harris. HA HA HA HA HA HA !

Did you like Jeb Bush comment to the newspaper that he didn't think Katherine Harris could win.

Posted by: wells | May 12, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Sandman I wouldn't be bringing up anything about the KKK because if you knew your history, you would know that they were a DEMOCRAT creation, 1867, Pulaski Tennasee.
No for 100 years or so, who controlled the South? Democrats.

Who terrorized Blacks and Northern Republicans working for equal rights and freedom for Blacks? DEMOCRATS. Who blocked and fillibustered every anti-lynching bill proposed by congressional Republicans? DEMOCRATS. Who set up the Jim Crow laws? DEMOCRATS>
What party did KKK members openly belong to? DEMOCRAT. What West Virgina member of the Senate was a member of the KKK? DEMOCRAT senator Robert Byrd.

That's one hell of a history and a dismal legacy to be apart of.

VivaGOP

Posted by: vivabush04OH | May 12, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

1) I never said all Southwestern Ohioans were KKK members. You're raising a red herring.

2) You made no defense of your name-calling Sherrod Brown Che Guevara. Nice double standard you hold there.

3) There are a lot more KKK members in Ohio than Communists.

4) How IMMENSELY telling that your counter to the fact that SW OH is the KKK's base in the state is the odd claim that there are also a lot of Democrats down there. Really? Is that why the vast majority of elected officials from the area are Republicans? It seems you've admitted that Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to be KKK members.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has also given some $53,350 to the DSCC.

Talent has $5.674 M on hand.
McKaskill has $2.038 M on hand. She has already received $37,300 from DSCC from latest filing reports. No direct contributions from HRC affiliated PAC's or committees as of yet.

Posted by: RMill | May 12, 2006 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has also given some $53,350 to the DSCC.

Talent has $5.674 M on hand.
McKaskill has $2.038 M on hand. She has already received $37,300 from DSCC from latest filing reports. No direct contributions from HRC affiliated PAC's or committees as of yet.

Posted by: RMill | May 12, 2006 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Sara, try getting your facts straight. Maria Cantwell has never declared bankruptcy. Where on earth did you fabricate that from?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 3:20 PM | Report abuse

My brother-in-law works at the White House and thinks some of the poeple running the republican Senate compaigns are retarded. So that's not a good sign.

Posted by: JPChrenter | May 12, 2006 3:16 PM | Report abuse

In answer to Subway:
There are bigots everywhere.
Yep the KKK's bound to exist in SWOH but there are a lot of Dems down there too.

Let me see, there are Socialist Workers orgs at Oberlin and OSU. Does that make those places all Commies?

VivaDeWine06

Posted by: vivabush04OH | May 12, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

DeWine still hasn't cracked 50% in approval ratings or polling.

Allen is leading Webb 50-30% and Miller 51-34% according to Apr 14 Rasmussen poll.


Ford Bell is dropping in polls, now behind Kennedy 44-33% in head to head in Rasmussen April 27 where Kennedy trails Klobuchar 45-43%.

Rhode Island College April 2006 poll has Sheeler pulling just 8% (with Brown still in at 21%) and Whitehouse with 37% in primary match up.


Clinton also had a fundraiser (3/21/06) later that evening in St. Louis. This is not the first time this has happened or that similar post-fundie groussing has taken place in Big MO. In October 2000, then President Clinton was in KC and raised $100,000 for HRC Senate bid at statewide Missouri Dems complained that it took money out of the pockets of US Senate candidate Mel Carnahan and Bob Holden who ran for Gov. She had raised an additional $100,000 in December 1999 as well. She has a well established set of contributors which should not hurt other fund raising for other candidates. These are very wealthy folks.

Posted by: RMill | May 12, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Reading this stuff is interesting. The Dems attack GOP writers about having talking points yet those same Dems yap the regular liberal/pacifist talk.
Regarding the McCaskill fundraising thing, if Claire had appeared at the home in Missouri with Hillary, it would have been called a fundraiser for Democrats. No big deal. But Claire is on record for complaining, and I wonder if she was even invited?
Maria Cantwell won in 2000 by only 2,200 votes, and that was after 30 days of recount and recount. So she is vulnerable against a well-financed Republican businessman. I remember that she used over $10 million of her Real Networks stock to finance her Senate race, and she went bankrupt after the stock sank. Hillary held a fundraiser to pay her debts. So why did Hillary fail to help McCaskill? That is a good question. Let's see some Dem whining.

Posted by: Sara | May 12, 2006 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Even with the Republican scandals in Ohio, I find it unlikely that DeWine will be picked off. He has no connection to the Taft machine, and I think the voters know as much. Ohio is a very conservative state right now, and I don't foresee high turnout for Brown. The national Democratic party would be well-advised to concentrate its resources on more winnable races, such as those in Montana, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. And, oh yeah . . . Virginia! I actually think that Virginia is trending inherently bluer than Ohio these days, and James Webb is the type of candidate who can appeal to voters in the state, especially with Mark Warner's endorsement. There are no high-profile, popular Democrats in Ohio right now to help Sherrod Brown in the same way. The Ohio gubernatorial race might be up for grabs, but the senate seat is staying put.

Posted by: The Caped Composer | May 12, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Ask and you shall receive
Rasmusen has Dewine up by two percentage points (43 to 41). Dewine has stayed pretty steady at 43-45 or so for six months. Now Brown is hovering around 40% with about 25% of likely voters with no opinion of him. The fact that Dewine hasn't dropped recently is positive, but he hasn't gained any either. Take that into account with the massive dicontent with Taft and the State GOP and you have a recipe for disaster.
Now I am not saying that Voters will lump Dewine with Taft, but there will definitly be some republicans staying home on election day because of the Taft situation. Take that with the fact that you know Brown is going to paint Dewine as a Bush crony (which he is) and Brown has a good chance of taking the election. I admit I was alot more confortable with the democratic pick-up about three months ago but I still think it is in the right place on Chris's list. Although Missouri is making a strong push to knock it off.

Posted by: Andy R | May 12, 2006 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, this poll was just released today, and "judicial/legal issues" (if that even includes filibusters of nominees) ranks -34th- on America's priority list. Not even 1% of respondents cited that; it got a lowly asterisk!! I do see that Bush's approval ratings have fallen to a new low: 29/71.

HARRIS
President Bush, Congress, Most Important Issue

Conducted 5/5-8/06; surveyed 1,003 adults; margin of error +/-3% (release, 5/12). A response of * indicates less than 0.5 percent.

How would you rate the overall job President George W. Bush is doing as president?
All Rep Ind Dem
Positive 29% 67% 19% 10%
Negative 71 33 81 90
Generally speaking, would you say things in the country are going in the right direction or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?
All Rep Ind Dem
Right direction 24% 48% 19% 13%
Wrong track 69 39 76 83
How would you rate the overall job the Congress is doing?
All Rep Ind Dem
Positive 18% 29% 12% 14%
Negative 80 70 86 82
And how would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing?
All Rep Ind Dem
Positive 20% 44% 11% 12%
Negative 76 53 83 87
And how would you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing?
All Rep Ind Dem
Positive 23% 10% 16% 40%
Negative 72 83 77 58
What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address? (open-ended)
War 28%
Immigration 16
Gas and oil prices 14
The economy (non-specific) 13
Healthcare (not Medicare) 8
Iraq/Saddam Hussein 7
Education 5
Taxes 5
Employment/Jobs 5
Foreign policy (non-specific) 4
Social Security 4
Homeland/Domestic security/
Public safety 3
National security 3
Terrorism 3
Programs for the poor/Poverty 3
Budget/Government spending 3
Medicare 2
Human/Civil/Women's rights 2
Religion (decline of) 2
Inflation 2
Homelessness 2
Ethics in government 2
Environment 2
Drugs 2
Crime/Violence 2
Abortion 2
Military/Defense 1
Welfare 1
Domestic/Social issues (non-specific) 1
Bush/President 1
Peace/World peace/Nuclear arms 1
Medical research 1
Middle East peace process between
Palestinians and Israel 1
Judicial/Legal issues *
Honesty/Integrity/Moral values *
Same sex marriage/Rights *
School safety *
Anthrax/Biological attack *
Downsizing government *
Disaster relief/Hurricane Relief *
CIA leak *
FEMA *
Family values (decline of) *
Energy 0
Federal budget surplus/Deficit 0
Election/Voter reform *
Other 6
Not sure/Refused/No issue 4

I wonder why it's ok to call Sherrod Brown Che Guevara but it's not ok to point out that the KKK's bastion of support in Ohio is in its southwest. I also wonder why an NRSC staffer publicly admitted that Mike DeWine was among their 3 most endangered incumbents.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm,
Not seeing any gloating about how Brown's going to whup DeWine's butt in November?

Got $$? Got poll ##"s?

Where are you Dems?

VivaDeWine06

Posted by: vivabush04OH | May 12, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Linda is merely spewing RNC talking points. The idea that anyone but the hard core base cares about judicial filibusters is laughable. Find me one single poll that shows the issue anywhere on Americans' list of priorities. I think education, health care, Iraq, and the economy are all much higher. I've posted such poll results here before, but the conservatives don't let themselves get confused by facts.

George Allen would be toast if Mark Warner were running. MILLIONS of new people have moved to Virginia?? That's quite an extreme exaggeration. What Census estimate do you get that figure from? Are you predicting that VA will gain 5 House seats in the next reapportionment? Allen also chew tobacco at hearings and pays full time staffers $16,000 a year, but that's not going to boot him from office.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 2:44 PM | Report abuse

What's the Degree of Certainty in the average of numbers from separate polls? Zero?

Posted by: RI Native in DC | May 12, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Wait....was the filing deadline in Florida at noon today or is it at midnight?

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 12, 2006 2:27 PM | Report abuse

When Matt Brown's campaign flamed out, I predicted that The Fix would not move RI up in its Senate rankings. I was right!

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 12, 2006 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Ten hours until the filing deadline in florida....Go Katherine!

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 12, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary came into KC unannounced to a private home and did a fundraiser. The mayor (Dem) and some high profile Kansas Citians were there as well. In all it was a couple of hours work. It made the paper (this happened awhile ago) after it was all said and done and not a peep since.

So you can write all you want (twice it appears) about how McCaskill is pissed about it but in the end it really doesn't matter. If McCaskill would have showed up and received the money what do you think you and Talent would have said--I can read the press release now!

Posted by: jenniferm | May 12, 2006 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Cook had to teach you how to take the average of two numbers?

Posted by: Duh | May 12, 2006 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Here's the media shaping our elections again!

I knew I shouldn't read this article because I knew I would find WaPo sticking its nose in and censoring candidates again. Chris, you neglected to mention the progressive Dems running in Minnesota and Rhode Island because they are both ANTI-WAR. I thought it was the media's job to report the news, not shape elections and throw its support to certain candidates.

This sucks and I really despise the disservice you are doing to the American people. When you censor candidates, you censor our right to have debate about issues and hear opposing points of view. Media reps like you are destroying our right to representation.

Having boatloads of money may be YOUR litmus test for who is the best candidate but it isn't mine! You failed.

Where's Ford Bell?
6. Minnesota -- OPEN Rep. Mark Kennedy continues to represent Republicans' best chance at a pick-up this cycle, but his road is not an easy one. Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar (D) cleared the primary field with remarkable ease over the past six months and has performed admirably on the fundraising front -- raising more than $3.7 million by the end of March. Klobuchar campaign pollster Anna Greenberg released a survey this week that showed her candidate with a 50 percent to 42 percent lead over Kennedy. More interesting than the head-to-head number, however, was that 66 percent of the sample said the state was on the wrong track and 58 percent voiced disapproval of the job President Bush is doing. Since the numbers were provided by Klobuchar's pollster, we take them with a grain of salt. But if Greenberg's numbers are anywhere close to where public sentiment actually lies, it will be extremely difficult for Kennedy to win.

Where's Carl Sheeler?
2. Rhode Island: For the first time since The Fix started compiling the Senate Line, we seriously contemplated moving this race down a slot or two. Secretary of State Matt Brown's (D) departure from the primary (a bow to the inevitable) should help former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse (D) consolidate support and save resources for the general election. And there is a very real possibility that Sen. Lincoln Chafee will lose the Republican primary in September to Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey. But if Chafee wins the primary, his moderate Republican credentials will make it difficult for Democrats to paint him as a tool of President Bush. The race keeps its high spot on the Line pending the results of the Republican primary, but the lack of a competitive primary on the Democratic side makes it easier for Chafee to win his own primary race. Whitehouse vs. Laffey, the Democrat probably wins. But in a Whitehouse-Chafee match-up, the seat is much more likely to remain in GOP hands.

Posted by: Kat | May 12, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I don't know anybody in RI who knows what the primary "cross over" history is; if there actually is any. There may not have been a signifcant race where it was a factor in the 30+ years that it's been possible.

I'm beginning to suspect that even if Linc gets by Laffey in the primary, that there's so much dissatifaction with the President right now that it will have an echo effect on Linc, no matter how independently he's voted.

As revelations about this Administration continue to add up, they may finally reach that "critical mass" point where R.I. voters come to believe that a vote for Linc will just allow Bush to continue unchecked for another two years.

Obviously there's a long way to go until the September 12th primary; but there is a critical date fast approaching. Declaring himself as an Independent may be the only way for Linc to win now. Per the RI Secretary of State: "...declaration of candidacy containing original signatures must be filed during the last consecutive Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in the month of June; June 26, 27, 28."

If he doesn't do that, come Sept. 12th this race may drop out of the top ten for "competitiveness". Advantage: Whitehouse.

Posted by: RI Native in DC | May 12, 2006 1:46 PM | Report abuse

To Dems: I can almost see you dancing around your computer screens when you write these posts...looking forward to the blood-bath that's about to come. Don't get too anxious. When Republicans start cranking up the old money-machine and getting some focus to their message, then we'll see where we stand. P.S. don't be surprised if about 2 months before the election, the prez doesn't start drawing down troops in Iraq. As for Allen in Virginia...this guy is not going to break a sweat keeping his seat. And Ford in Tenn., best pure politician I've seen since Clinton...but not in a slimey way.

Posted by: FH | May 12, 2006 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with everyone else on here who thinks that Nebraska should not be on the list. I fail to see how Ben Nelson is vulnerable. Most popular Senator in the country, very moderate voting record, $3 million warchest (which goes along way in NE), and it's a democratic year. What qualifications does Ricketts have besides being rich? I don't care if Bush won with 100% of the vote in 2004, now it is '06. Bush's numbers are anemic even in Nebraska and Nelson couldn't be safer.

Posted by: Ohio guy | May 12, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

To: Linda

Nice try - do you think we are stupid. Judges Ha! The biggest issue next week in the Senate is the Immigration Bill. Senator Frist plans to bring the Immigration Bill back up in the Senate next week. It will not address the illegal immigration issue. Story at the end of the week "Sen. Bill Frist destroys his chance of running for President".

Posted by: Wells | May 12, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse

So neither Webb nor Miller has what Allen has to win the Va. Senate seat??? Hmm, like a history of beating the crap out of his siblings as a child, or a fetish for the Confederate flag as an adolescent/ adult? And let's not forget that smirk which Allen is incapable of masking. Let's hope that neither Webb nor Miller has whatever it is that Allen has.....

Posted by: BobInDenver | May 12, 2006 1:07 PM | Report abuse

so, let's do the math. Last stuff I saw, seems to indicate 80 percent Governors are going Dem, and most incumbent Rs are running 20 points under their D opponents in House and Senate.

We're looking at a massive bloodbath here. The media just wants us to think it's a race, cause that sells dead trees.

Bush is in the 20s now. It WILL get worse. Heck, Cheney's less popular than Hitler was during WWII.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 12, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Wake up and smell the massive landslide heading for both the House and Senate. Especially in the West, which is not counted much in your DC-centric race listings.

But, hey, it's not my fault you guys don't have good field ops past the Mississippi.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 12, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I just don't see Nebraska being on this list anymore.

The single most popular Senator in the US right now in favorables and net favorables in Ben Nelson. He holds 20-30 point leads in recent polls. His fund raising is unmatched regardless of Ricketts personal wealth, much of which was used just to get through the primary.

Rothenberg Report has stated that New Jersey is probably the most endangered Senate seat right now with the caveat that they do not believe it is likely that any Dem seats will fall at this point.

I would tend to agree with this assessment.

I like the list until #7, where I would put NJ, then TN, MD and replace Nebraska with WA and put it at #10.

Posted by: RMill | May 12, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

state Auditor Claire McCaskill (D) is angry at Hillary flying into Missouri and taking away $40,000 instead of helping McCaskill raise that money. Claire's bank account is low, fundraising is sluggish, and her ability to show strong support is lacking.

The Dems can badmouth Senator Talent all they want, but the Republicans want to keep control of the Senate. The biggest battle brewing next week will be the filibuster to pass Senate confirmation for Brent Kavanaugh, (who has been blocked for 5 years). Filibuster will be the battle for another Bush judge, and if Frist wants to show he can be a contender for President, he better have the balls to get this judge passed out of the Senate. Roll out those cots, and it might delay that recess on May 25th, but it is important to do the job and get the judge passed. That will be a key factor for the 2006 Senate races. It was a reason why Tom Dashel of S Dakota got clobbered in 2004.

Posted by: Linda | May 12, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

The scuttlebutt in Missouri is that state Auditor Claire McCaskill (D) is pissed that Hillary walked off with $40,000 from a fundraiser. That money could have helped McCaskill's lack of funds, so you all can understand why behind-the-scenes, she is one big Democrat donkey kicking and braying.

If the Democrats filibuster Brent Kavanaugh as a federal judge next week, let's just hope Frist has the GOP balls to hold the Senate in session with cots and debate steady for hours and hours. If the Democrats fail to get closture, the President wins. That is the greatest fear. But Frist and the GOPers, including Talent, are willing to stay longer than May 25 (before Memorial Day recess).

Democrats say they are ready for a battle, so let the GOP get organized to accept the challenge and fight for Kavanagh and Terrace Boyle too.

Posted by: Linda | May 12, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Viva,

You better hope DeWine wins because Blackwell is going to get smoked in Gov race.

Posted by: kevlen | May 12, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Elvis,
If Allen loses (and that is a big if) then control of the Senate will probably fall into the democrats hands. The true power in our government lies in the legislative branch. Especially when you have a lame duck president who's approval ratings are in the toilet. I say you worry about 08 after 06. The #1 priority is to take back at least one house of congress so that we can really get to the bottom of what has been happening in Washington for the past 6 years.

Posted by: Andy R | May 12, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris, why have you repeatedly placed Ben Nelson's seat on this list? His approval rating is a whopping 70%, even higher than Chuck Hagel's.

Also, when looking towards '08, don't we want Allen to win comfortably in his Senate seat so he can upset McCain in the Republican primary, thus giving Democrats a sure win (especially now, given the New Republic article on him)? Hell, even Al Sharpton could compete against Allen in the presidential election.

Posted by: elvis be true | May 12, 2006 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Since Allen was ellected in 2000, millions of people have moved in Virginia. This will be their first time seeing Allen on the ballot, and I have feeling this people will not be too proud of his confederate creditentials and his strong support for BUSH.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, my comment was directed toward Wells, not webb.

Posted by: Paul Richards - NY | May 12, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Dear Webb,

I am not surprised about D'amato's endorsement. Although I am a Democrat, I know quite a few republicans and they are a different breed here in New York State. You can see it in some of the 2004 returns. I might be mistaken, but Kerry got 7 or 8 % or the republican vote overall, but in NY he got close to 15%.

Posted by: Paul Richards - NY | May 12, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I was curious if Warner would step in to the democratic primary or not. I personally like the idea of Warner flexing his muscles again. If Webb wins the primary (anyone have poll numbers either way) then Allen will be going against not just Webb but the Warner machine as well. That could definitly be seen as a mini-refrendum on how Allen and Warner head-to-head would fare in 2008.

Posted by: Andy R | May 12, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Too much credit may be given by CC to Allen on his statewide wins. I don't know if Allen has a true election track record yet. One was a classic Conservative v. Liberal race for governor in 1993 against Mary Sue Terry, where he won by 58% to 41%. The next race in 2000, was against an already "politically wounded" Sen. Chuck Robb, a notorious poor campaigner. In that race Allen won by 52% to 48%.

Allen has always been able to brand his opponent as a "Liberal," whether it was true or not. He can do that to Harris Miller, but he won't be able to do that to Jim Webb. [The Mark Warner Seal of Approval through that appearance last night was huge.]

The Democratic primary on Tuesday, June 13th will determine whether or not this seat can change hands. If Webb wins, this is a legitimate candidate for your Top Ten.

Posted by: Vienna Voter | May 12, 2006 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Just wanted to say again, MN is NOT trending Republican. If you take out the votes that Nader won in 2000 and 2004, the Presidential elections would not have been close. The Republican governor will lose this year, a new Dem Senator will be elected, and Dems will have an excellant change of beating Norm Coleman in '08 when he's up for re-election.

Posted by: Colin | May 12, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Tina,

I disagree with the notion that the GOP better serves the national interest in defending the country. President Bush has fought against Democratic proposals for more spending on ports and security. Republican members have turned the Department of Homeland Security into a pork factory, instead of using scare funds strategically to better ensure national safety. Whle MN and certainly TN may normally trend Republican (although Kerry carried MN), this year is looking like a good year for the Democrats and we may see more Democratic victories than you think.

Posted by: Jeremy | May 12, 2006 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Tina - Do you actually know anything about Minnesota politics? First of all, the state has actually trended Democratic again since 2002. For proof, take a look at Dems winning back control of the State house (by picking up a huge number of seats)and coming within two votes of controlling the State Senate. Moreover, have you taken a look at President Bush's poll numbers in the State? They're even lower than nationally, which saying something given the current political climate.

Additionally, Mark Kennedy almost lost in his last House race in a very conservative district despite going up against a first time candidate (who admittedly did have good name recognition)who he outspent more than 2-1. How exactly does that make him a strong candidate again? Oh, and a new poll has Pawlenty down by 10 for re-election as Gov.

Look, I get that you are obviously a rock ribbed Republican and think that anyone who has a different view is crazy. However, you might want to start thinking about the fact that upwards of 60% of the Country is "crazy" right now based upon your measure. Just a thought.

Posted by: Colin | May 12, 2006 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Warner did a fundraiser for Webb last night, and I've read Webb raised $175,000 from that alone. Allen does have a strong attack team in place, but Virginians are sick of negative campaigning (didn't work for Kilgore). It will be interesting to watch this race.

Posted by: Stacey | May 12, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

First of all, in the name of full disclosure, Klobuchar campaign pollster Anna Greenberg is the daughter of Stan Greenburg, husband of Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat. I guess I am referring to it since most people believe as I do that some pollsters are not objective and that they have an agenda which leds them to twist the questions to the people being polled in order to manipulate the results.

Minnesota is leaning more Republican today than it was in 2000, with a GOP governor and a close election for electoral votes in 2004. Congressman Mark Kennedy is well-respected and has the resume to best represent the people of the state.

Tennessee is also leaning Republican. If Al Gore had won his own state in 2000, he would have been in the White House. The state held strong for Republican electoral votes in 2004 as did the entire Southern state region.

In my opinion, the angry DC-based Democrats will try to use President Bush to bash the Republican candidates for the Senate, but if the voters want a strong nation, defending us from criminals and those who would blow up our buildings or murder people to destablize or collapse our government, then those voters will put into place the strong Republicans needed to do the job NOW.

Posted by: Tina | May 12, 2006 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I don't know what Tommy Thompson is planning on doing but if he Does decide to run for any public office I will personally send every free penny I have to make sure that he is beaten. That man is a mockery of a scientist and a fool to boot. He set back US international public health by years during his tenure as the secretary of HHS. Especailly in the field of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
(Sorry To rant but that man makes my blood boil)

Posted by: Andy R | May 12, 2006 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I agree that Missouri will be close, but McCaskill is not a really good campaigner. She has said she will not rely on the consultants which is good--but she needs to get the rural vote to win. Talent is a guy who needs coattails to win and I don't think Bush/Cheney will do him much good this year.

Neither candidate has any appeal but Talent is far worse on the issues than McCaskill (from my point of view). Unfortunately, Talent has to be the junior senator from a state that has Kit Bond. He's Karl Rove's water boy and gets to bring home the pork for his efforts--too bad Talent can't cut in on that game.

Posted by: jenniferm | May 12, 2006 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Just heard that: Former NY Republican Senator Mr. D'Amato gave his endorsement to Democrat Mr. Spitzer for Governor of New York.

What is going on in New York ?

Conservative Fox News Owner Murdoch giving fundraisers for Hillary. Now, D'Amato endorsing a democrat.

What next ?

Rudy Guliani decides to run as a democrat in 2008 for president.

Posted by: Wells | May 12, 2006 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I was very surprised to see Ohio higher up the list than Missouri. Sherrod Brown is too easily painted as a "Cleveland liberal," and Mike DeWine is not tied to the Taft administration, thus, his reputation is not tainted. It is highly unlikely that DeWine will lose his seat. It is a much more realistic possibility that Jim Talent will lose his. His victory over Jean Carnahan in '02 was razor-thin, and his waffling on stem cells will cause him problems. Add to that the disappointment with Matt Blunt, as Greg-G describes, and the Missouri senate seat is much more likely to change hands.

Posted by: The Caped Composer | May 12, 2006 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Sherrod Brown has about as much chance of beating Dewine as Alan Keyes had against Obama. If anybody really believes this race is competive, they probably thought McGovern was a sure thing over Nixon. PLEASE

Posted by: Barry Hoomes | May 12, 2006 10:15 AM | Report abuse

KJB, not a prayer of that happening. Thompson has repeatedly said that he is enjoying all of the money he's making. He's not coming out of the private sector anytime soon...if ever.

Posted by: Greg-G | May 12, 2006 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Andy R, you mostly preempted my comments...

Completely agree that NJ and MD won't be at all close come Election Day, with the Dems holding both.

Also agree that MO is the most interesting race at this point. Talent is a "talent"ed campaigner (haha), but I think Chris missed an important part of this race in his analysis. McCaskill narrowly lost the governor's race to Blunt's kid last cycle, and Blunt Jr. has been a total disaster. There is significant buyer's remorse, and I think that sentiment (more than stem cells) could be the driving factor to a McCaskill victory in November.

Posted by: Greg-G | May 12, 2006 10:03 AM | Report abuse

What happens to this list is we in Wisconsin hear the words most of us never thought we'd hear from Tommy Thompson, "I'm taking on Herb?"

Discuss.

Posted by: KJB | May 12, 2006 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Where are the polls for or against Allen?

It seems to me that New Jersey is gonna be pretty safe for Menendez. He's only been there for a year or so and I just don't see the voters not giving him six more years, especially in the current climate.

The most interesting race to me is Missouri. Talent seems to be finding himself in a real pickle. McCaskill is well known in the State and I think she is on the right side of this Stem Cell issue. With the current anti-incumbent feeling in the country I think she might pull this one off. Also it might be time to have Montana jump up one spot. Burns is dead in the water, and Chafee is showing signs of life (I don't see the Repubs voting Laffey in, but MAN would that be sweet for us Dems).

Posted by: Andy R | May 12, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Chris on the Sen. Allen - he is safe. Dems are promoting Webb so that it will tie up Allen's time and resources so that he can not launch a viable presidential campaign.

I do think that Virginia is slowly trending blue. The effect of blue Northern Virginia are bleeding into the state turn it purple. But not fast enough to make Sen. Allen vulnerable in November. I was shocked to see how well Kerry did in Virginia in 2004 when he spent very little money there. They have also elected democtrat governors twice in a row. Republicans have out spent democrats in Virgian state races to try to keep the state red. But evidence shows republicans are slowly losing the battle. Money can only buy time before tide of political reality sweeps in.

Posted by: Wells | May 12, 2006 9:32 AM | Report abuse

As a former Nebraskan, I think Ricketts has a tough road ahead. Nelson votes pretty conservative (heck, he was mentioned as a potential Ag Secretary before the job went to the Neb. governor) and he was a popular governor himself. A lot of people I've talked to in the state aren't very fond of Ricketts because of his wealth, and are planning to stick with Nelson.

Posted by: DC Husker | May 12, 2006 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or does Chris have a gigantic man-crush on George Allen? What about the fact that he beat his siblings and proudly waved the Confederate flag? I'm not so sure about his chances in a state that's moving toward the Democratic party.

Posted by: Glenn Gervasio | May 12, 2006 9:18 AM | Report abuse

You want to talk odds, I'll give you 2-1 that Seantor DeWine beats Sherrod Brown.

After the primary, I was not hearing ANY Ohio pundit suggesting that Brown might upset DeWine.

By November Ohioans will have a choice beteen mainstream Senator DeWine and Che Guevarra.

VivaDeWine06

Posted by: vivabush04OH | May 12, 2006 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I didn't know Chris Cillizza used to work for Charlie Cook. I think Charlie Cook is a brilliant political analyst. Chris you just got a gold star in my book.

Posted by: Wells | May 12, 2006 9:12 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me that if we are saying certain races are close even when we do not yet know who the final candidates will be then the basis for the analyis must be problems with the incumbent.

This mornings WP has a poll - 63% of Americans have no problem with NSA story- but yet even Republicans expressed anger over the NSA story - I guess they forgot to check with the polsters before having an opinion.

For me all of this says - it is a free for all and predictig anything right now is silly. the American people are all over the map and running around in circles - the future is anyone's guess

I do like the fact all incumbents appeared to be scared to death

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: BObby Wightman-Cervantes | May 12, 2006 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Im sure Webb v. Allen would be in the top 15 list, if he put one

Posted by: ssss | May 12, 2006 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Ironically, Dems may would Allen the way the fantasized about wounding Hillary this year with Pirro. A James Webb may not be able to defeat Allen. But if Allen barely survives his presidential prospects will be taking a torpedo. That's huge because with McCain likely to stumble Allen was the consensus choice of the GOP nomenklatura.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | May 12, 2006 6:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company