Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line: Don't Forget Congress!

We've been receiving some e-mails in The Fix inbox of late chiding us for going all presidential in the last few weeks.

While we make no excuses for covering what is, quite frankly, the most wide open, unpredictable and exciting presidential race in recent American political history, The Fix has been suffering a little congressional race withdrawal of our own.

So, below you'll find updated House and Senate lines. And, you have our word that once the presidential race quiets down (if that ever happens) we'll be back offering Fix readers regular updates on the state of play in the House, Senate and gubernatorial contests.

As always, the number one ranked race on each line is the most likely seat to change party control. Agree or disagree? Your thoughts are welcome in the comments section.

To the line(s)!

SENATE

Last fall it looked as though Democrats could make a legitimate run at 60 seats in November. That dream is gone but the number of GOP retirements and continued lackluster recruiting by Senate Republicans puts Democrats in position to pick up somewhere between two and five seats. (Just one of the ten seats on this month's line is held by a Democrat.) Since our last Line, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has run his typical brutally efficient campaign, scaring away top Democratic challengers and keeping himself off this month's Line. The resignation of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and the controversy over when the special election will be held to replace him puts his seat on the Line this month.

10. Mississippi (OPEN Republican-held seat; Lott resigned)
9. Alaska (Republican Sen. Ted Stevens running for re-election)
8. Oregon (Republican Sen. Gordon Smith running for re-election)
7. Maine (Republican Sen. Susan Collins running for re-election)
6. Minnesota (Republican Sen. Norm Coleman running for re-election)
5. Colorado (OPEN Republican-held seat; Sen. Wayne Allard retiring)
4. Louisiana (Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu running for re-election)
3. New Hampshire (Republican Sen. John Sununu running for re-election)
2. New Mexico (OPEN Republican-held seat; Sen. Pete Domenici retiring)
1. Virginia (OPEN Republican-held seat; Sen. John Warner retiring)

HOUSE

The last month or so has provided mixed results for House Republicans. On one hand, retirements continue to afflict the party -- Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.) is the latest example. On the other hand some good news is trickling in -- most notably Rep. Bill Young's (R-Fla.) decision to run for re-election and Rep. John Doolittle's (R-Calif.) decision not to run. It still looks like an uphill journey for Republicans to pick up House seats; just one of the ten seats on this month's Line is currently held by a Democrat.

10. Louisiana's 6th district (OPEN Republican-held seat; Baker resigning)
9. California's 11th district (Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney running for re-election)
8. Minnesota's 3rd district (OPEN Republican-held seat; Rep. Jim Ramstad retiring)
7. New Mexico's 1st district (OPEN Republican-held seat; Rep. Heather Wilson running for Senate)
6. Ohio's 15th district (OPEN Republican-held seat; Rep. Deborah Pryce retiring)
5. New Jersey's 7th district (OPEN Republican-held seat; Rep. Mike Ferguson retiring)
4. Illinois' 11th district (OPEN Republican-held seat; Rep. Jerry Weller retiring)
3. Arizona's 1st district (OPEN Republican-held seat; Rep. Rick Renzi retiring)
2. New Jersey's 3rd district (OPEN Republican-held seat; Rep. Jim Saxton retiring)
1. Ohio's 16th district (OPEN Republican-held seat; Rep. Ralph Regula retiring)

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 18, 2008; 1:26 PM ET
Categories:  The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Friday Line: Uncertainty Reigns
Next: Michigan Predictions Revisited

Comments

If McCain is the GOP the gain in the Senate will be limited to 2 or 3. If any of the others are nominated, six to seven seats are still possible.

Posted by: gchraj | January 19, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I don't think 4 & 7 should be on this list. These women will be helped by Hillary at the top of the Dem ticket, although Susan is a Repub, I've always thought her seat was pretty safe despite some reports.

Posted by: lylepink | January 19, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday I agreed with KOZ that medicare/medicaid, as underfunded future liabilities, dwarfed other fiscal problems.
I hasten to add that was while KOZ was arguing in favor of institutionalizing deficits and inflation.

Colin tried to get KOZ out of his advocacy mode, but it never quite got started.

Now that we have tesla2 and harried discussing zen in double spaced stream-of-consciousness posts, KOZ appears a blessed relief.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 18, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

porkbarrell spending which I consider corrupt.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 18, 2008 06:07 PM

Not my issue. not really enough money to worry about. I am more worried about SS, Medicare and medicaid. but I don't mind if you want to pursue it, every little bit helps.

I just don't see the corruption. I see the favor trading and influence but don't mind that. the pols I know would not change their vote based on any donation. the limits are very low.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 06:25 PM


Well I agree with proud that it is corrupt but it is hardly the exclusive property of the Democratic Congress. After all, it was the Republican Congress that gave us the bridge to nowhere and took earmarks to new heights. The Democrats are hypocrites about ending them and seem to be trying to outdo the Republicans. As for the limits being low, the key point is that the special interests bundle hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions by soliciting from their corporate sponsors. That does get people's attention.


BUT, I agree with zouk that this issue pales beside the looming Medicare crisis. Social Security can be fixed far more easily than Medicare, but that too is a problem.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 18, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

My bad cc. The post in question was on a previous thread. My mistake. Not that I've never been banned or blocked beofre though .

My appolgies. you are THE journalist in washington :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 18, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Oh, It's play time on this site huh gop. Ok. I've been nice. I had hoped once everything I said came to pass you people would change your propoganda ways. I guess not. i guess this site has not come as far as I thought. Back to verbal combat come next week, after obama wins nv. Remember how this site used to be? Next week verbal combat returns. Since it's play time

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 18, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHHAHAHA.

mR ZERO CREDIBILITY RUNNING HIS MOUTH. Go rudy, right zouk. From go rudy to , I might support obama. But I'm the joke hahahahahahha

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 18, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

porkbarrell spending which I consider corrupt.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 18, 2008 06:07 PM

Not my issue. not really enough money to worry about. I am more worried about SS, Medicare and medicaid. but I don't mind if you want to pursue it, every little bit helps.

I just don't see the corruption. I see the favor trading and influence but don't mind that. the pols I know would not change their vote based on any donation. the limits are very low.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

koz, we are in agreement then. Although, even as much as I respect Mitch McConnell, the issue of campaign finance reform and the broader topic of ethics and the corrupting influence of money in politics is more important than static cling to this 'average American'.

I think the dem Congress as of 2006 is a perfect example of fraud, waste, and abuse, and I will support any R who fights against them and their porkbarrell spending which I consider corrupt.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 18, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Proud - don't get me wrong - if the choice is Mack vs hill there is really no option now is there? I would even hold my nose and vote for Huck before the evil clinton. but we have the chance to improve our options over the next few months by debating the possibilites. I find it quite stimulating. the road from good to better to best is still in front of us. Meanwhile the Dems go from worse towards worst.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm young and know nothing. Someone enlighten me please

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 18, 2008 05:20 PM

Truer words were never written.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, you are simply too much of a simpleton to even reply to.

Proud - I also don't care much for Warner nor Lindsey graham. that was a good fight we should have engaged and won. Granted it might come back to bite us.

I am still very angry about Mc Cain Feingold and will never heal. free speech is free, not regulated. there is no explaining out of this one. with Feindgold as the co-sponsor, aren't you just a little suspicious. I don't prefer someone who has big government instincts like that. I am not the only one and I am not an extreme right winger. Neither are many of the other non-Mack voters. Most of his base is indeed Independents and Democrat-lite. why is that?

coulter had a point when she said your Spidey senses should be tingling when the Lib press loves an R candidate. this includes Huck and Mack but not Rudy or Mitt. think about it. how long until they turn 180 on them? Right after the noimination, that's when.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Who watches the watchmen, right zouk?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen

If only you people would hold your own to the same standards as you hold the d's, like the dems now do, we would not be in the deep water we are. Maybe we never would have went into iraq. I know I know. Accountabilty is for someone else, right gop?

You could have had a gop majority. You got greedy, adn thank God you did. As a result the gop is done for a generation. Time to repent for the past. Make up for what you people did. Please start by getting fox rush savage coulter malkin hannity and o'reilly off the air. Start there and we can work to rebuild the damage you people have done. or continue to your irrelevance. Your choice. Choose wisely.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Come on zouk. you and I know that will never happen. How many battles have we had here? Now your voting for Obama?

Man. I'll take it, I did my work well. But damn. you people are weirdos. I guess it's all in the fight, huh. for fun. Destroy your country for fun. Or is it money (taxes).

the gop is done. remember 01-05. remember, in terms of this site, how it was before people like me opened up the dialogue. Crazy to hear you voting for Obama zouk. Hysterical to me. But good. So you are a patriot after all. Tricky zouk/cc you

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 18, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

koz, as quickly as you swept aside the charges against Kerik and Giuliani, I would say that your disagreements with McCain amount to more of the same ultra-right wing noise that seeks to generalize every argument, no matter how moderate, into a radio soundbite without discussing the details or rationale.

The gang of 14...it sounds so bad and scary when it's repeated by Rush for years on the radio as part of his rant,

What is actually was was a group of seven R and seven D (mostly pragmatic) senators who kept the Senate from plunging into a battle over the role of the filibuster last year. Not exactly an extremist notion. Imagine, working toward getting something accomplished in the Senate, how novel!

When somebody teams up with the likes of John Warner and Lindsey Graham, I hardly think it can be criticized as a liberal position. Same with torture. Look who was in agreement.

Besides, John Roberts easily survived the process, and there is no valid reason to suggest that John McCain would not pick strict constructionist judges; his record is impeccable. All of the Rs are the same on judges, except maybe Huck. But you were never one to care that much about social con issues anyway.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 18, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a traitor to this country, not teh d's.

When did bribery become legal in america? Anyone know? At what point did BRIBERY get turned into Lobbyists?

What the the biggest penalty in your anceint rome gop? Treason and bribery, no? for good reason. No govnerment can be free or by the people when bribery is allowed. I don't understand. I'm young and know nothing. Someone enlighten me please

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 18, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

the VA primary is right after Feb 5th. I will consider my options at that time. Who knows who will be left. Perhaps I will cross over and vote for Obambi. that has the biggest payoff for me in a game theory way.

I suspect Fred, Mack and Huck will be gone on Feb 6th.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

hEY. i MADE A POST FOR A REASON CC. Who are you to deleate it? Are you deleting any other posts?

""Naturally, The common people don't want war, but war after all, it is the "leaders" of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or parliment, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. this is Easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goeering, Hitler's Reich manual at the Nerenberg trails after ww2


"See, in my line of work, you have to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to set in

....


to kind of catapult the propoganda."

George Bush


"We stand for the maintenance of private property ... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
- Adolph Hitler

"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 18, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

He is the leading opponent of Campaign Finance reform and the leading protector of special interest influence.

Posted by: PaulSilver | January 18, 2008 05:08 PM


good for him. Keep up the good work Mitch. when will you Libs realize that every single one of us is some sort of special interest. why shouldn't we be allowed to redress our grievances to our representatives? how utterly stalinesque of you. Are your arguments so weak they stand no chance in the open debate forum?

did you know that teachers unions, trial attorneys, adopted children, the homeless, aids patients and even gun owners are all "special interest " groups are have the right to voice their views to the legislature?

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

last post of the day before i race my friends to the watering hole.

McCain acts like a dem? fine, we'll take him, and you guys can get liberman, deal? jokes aside, your right about one point, he does get it about terror,torture,and some points on immigration. sure the keating 5 thing, and the gang of 14 are a few black marks overall he doesnt sugar coat whatever he says.

seriously, maybe you should take a look at McCain again, unless you really dont want to get embarrassed if rudy is the nominee, and americans really take a look at his record.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | January 18, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I am supporting Fred for the next two days. Strategery, its called. everyone is 1 for 5 that way.

bill was not only disbarred, he was impeached. That is not nothing. he obstructed justice and is a liar. that sir, is a fact. It leads me to beleive that he lies about a lot of things. Pardons for cash should be enough to make you quesy. and there is so much more. you need willfull suspension of belief to accept the long list.

Al Capone got tagged for income tax. do you staunchly beleive all that other stuff was trumped up charges with no actual merit?

I am not on a jury or in a court, I am a voter. I have a lower threshold of proof for my beleifs. I think any cognisant person is aware that the clintons are not honest or trustworthy people. you may be happy to accept that in your candidate in order to win. On occasion, I might be also. but this, on top of the ridculous policies and pandering, leaves me cold.

I want to win the war, reduce taxes, prevent government health care, etc. so even if hillary was a sparkling clean virgin like Obamabi might be, I wouldn't vote for her.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I would like to hear your thoughts on how Mitch McConnell can be defeated.

He is the leading opponent of Campaign Finance reform and the leading protector of special interest influence.

Posted by: PaulSilver | January 18, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

JD-uh no not yet, but by the time i post this last message,its miller time. but seriously, here's how i see it 1)polls really dont mean a thing now so its anyone's game 2)evangelicals will come out to support huckboom on the day of the primary and 3) what ever bounce he might get out of south carolina will factor in.

but then again who knows what might happen in the next two weeks.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | January 18, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

My point was not to denigrate McCain for his lack of proper judgment in the Keating five (although being grouped in with four other Dems and no Rs seems to be a theme for him). Rather I continue to fault him for the McCain-Feingold thing, which is completely contrary to the actions he took in the Keating incident. I also fault him for immigration, gang of 14, tax cuts, global warming, etc. I don't care for his temper and find his know-it-all attitude off-putting. there are arguments on both sides of the "torture' debate, yet
McCain acts like a Dem and wants to shut down opposing views like Al gore "It's settled".

nevertheless, if he is chosen by the esteemed voters to lead the party, he is certainly preferred to Hillary or Obambi. he does grasp the two essential issues of our time - terror and spending. but I don't trust his court appointees and don't trust him not to raise taxes. Overall, a less than ideal candidate.

I don't have these same reservations about rudy. the kerick thing is old news with no legs and the mistress slurs are just Dems reacting to the flaws of the clintons. I am mostly policy oriented and don't go for personalities as much. Unless it is a borderline personality like ron Paul or a serial liar like Edwards and clinton.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

proud-as part of the "moonbat"brigade here, i did vote for McCain in 2000 ,if anything he's the least objectionable gop canidate on your side, romney however pretty much lost his favorite son cred when he left the state,(what? michigan is too good for you mitt?)

2008 on the other hand, i proudly voted uncommitted. hillary is not getting my vote that easily.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | January 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

... if rudy doesnt get the nod(and it looks likely that huckboom will win florida) ...

Posted by: jaymills1124 | January 18, 2008 04:21 PM

WTF? Jay, you already drinking, at 4:20p? Seek help, dude.

Huck's in 4th place

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_republican_primary-260.html

Rasmussen has it a little tighter, but still Huck's in 4th

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_republican_primary

Two more polls, one has Huck 3rd in Fl, one 4th

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/republican-polls-sc-fl-pa-ca-ma-011808002.html

So..... we must ask you: Why do you say it looks like Huck will WIN Florida?

Posted by: JD | January 18, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

zouk-ok fair enough but what has she been convicted of? indictments? or more jumped up charges? yeah sure bill has been disbarred but thats basically a slap on the wrist.

and yes we all know clinton was behind that lawsuit, even stevie wonder saw who was behind that. most of the meme about the clintons are becoming old news.

off topic, i thought you were supporting rudy and your saying go fred? so your predicting a brokered gop convention too?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | January 18, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

koz, are you in agreement with moonbats now? I see the libs are agreeing with you to attack an honorable R. What a shame.

As you know, McCain was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee after a lengthy investigation that included weeks of televised hearings. The committee found that McCain had ''exercised poor judgment'' in attending, with four other senators, two meetings with federal banking regulators, but it found no improper action on his part.

No improper action.

Would that we could say the same about other elected officials. Like Rudy Giuiliani who squires around his mistress on the taxpayers dime or Bernie Kerik his consigliere.

"I found nothing in my investigation which caused me to question Senator McCain's integrity,'' said Robert Bennett, the Washington lawyer who was special counsel to the ethics panel during the Keating Five investigation.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E7D9123CF932A15752C1A96F958260

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 18, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Kentucky's dropping out of the line, as GOP prospects in many seats have improved in the past 2 months.

Make sure to check Campaign Diaries's Senate rankings with detailed analysis of every race. The latest update is barely a week-old: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/senaterankings

Posted by: campaigndiaries | January 18, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Well there was that cattle trading thing. and the FBI files missing. and the billing records. and the IRS files. and that cash for pardons thing and a whole trail of funny business over 35 years that in each single circumstance could be misconstrued, but in its totality points to something much more sinister. you see I do probability for a living. the chance of one of these things being true/false is pretty even but if you assume they are independent, the chance of all of them being true/false is astronomical. no other politican has a trail of tears this long. even the ones already in prison.

does anyone out there really think the clintons had NOTHING to do with the teachers union lawsuit in NV? they have perfected the genre.

and wasn't her husband disbarred, sued and fined for something or other?

As I said about rudy, I will wait to make those decision until they are mandatory. I still think he has a good chance to win the fifth contest and be 1 for 5 just like everyone else, but with the most delegates at that point. he is a clear favorite on Feb 5th. go Fred.

I have voted Libertarian more times than not in the past. but the current Libertarian is a total kook.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

zouk(you funny funny guy)-two things, so if rudy doesnt get the nod(and it looks likely that huckboom will win florida) will you just vote 3rd party like libertarian or constiution party, or just stay home? and 2, do you have any evidence of hillary commiting any crimes short of reciving a parking ticket or is this more of the same crap you been spamming for about 35 years?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | January 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Under no circumstances would I ever cast an affirmative vote for hillary. I also don't beleive that Obama is ready for the job, I envision another Jimmy Carter, idealistic and well meaning but totally over his head and ineffective.

I don't care for Huck or Mack. If you guys put up hillary, I will vote contrary no matter what. I will make other decisions as they come up. I am still hoping for Rudy since he is the most qualified and effective candidate in either party. he has run a rather lackluster campaign though. It seems getting elected may have different qualifications and skills than actually perfroming the job. hmmmmm.

We need Arnold or some other actor to fool us into voting for them. then we are dissappointed by the performance. Case in point - Obama seems to be good at campaigning but I doubt he will be an effective leader once elected.

On the other hand - hillary seems to be pretty poor at campaiging but would probably make a competant executive (assuming you agree with her policies and can overlook her criminality).

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, I believe it's silly for the Federal Gov to get involved with those issues as well. It's not their job.

and it's true, HRC is trying to bribe us with our own money. I guess that's understandable, she's a politician running for office, and she isn't the most ethical person in the world; Bush has no similar excuse, and should know better.

I'm guessing you and I would differ on which problems the gov should be fixing in the first place, but that's a different discussion.

Posted by: JD | January 18, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"1) Recessions can be a good thing, if you think long term health of the economy
2) $250b pumped into a $13t economy is practically a rounding error
3) Not a good idea to introduce moral hazards (by letting marginal homebuyers/speculators off the hook)"


I'm beginning to think along those lines. A little belt-tightening could do this country some good.

Posted by: bsimon | January 18, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

JD, I don't agree with the general perspective of that article, but this part is right on the money:

"It seems politicians' big idea is that since they couldn't protect us from predatory lenders, outsourcing manufacturers, the crashing dollar and energy speculators, they can at least numb the pain by mailing us $20 bills to rub on our wounds."

I'm tired of politicians offering tax cuts, rebates, or grants instead of fixing problems. For instance, the article mentions that Hillary Clinton's plan includes low-income fuel assistance. That's inane. Fuel assistance is fine for local governments and charities, who don't have the resources to change the system. But we're talking about the federal government. If Hillary is concerned about rising fuel costs, she needs to push for changes that will reduce peoples' energy bills, not just give out money to pay those bills. Otherwise

Politicians always want to take the easy way out. We need solutions that will attack the root causes of our problems, not just hand out money in response.

Posted by: Blarg | January 18, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Blert, I agree that it's a ways off to predict how the economy will impact the election, but I think it's likely to hurt the R's more. The Reps (with the exception of Huckabee) have been, up to a month or two ago, saying that the economy is just fine. They look and sound like George H.W. Bush at a supermarket. Plus, voters favor Democrats on a host of issues that are driving their economic woes: health care, education and energy--all issues that Republicans aren't even addressing.

I really don't buy that the Dems controlling Congress for a year will exonerate the Republicans. Voters realize that this has been building and going on for a lot longer than that, and they'll blame the president and his party. G.W Bush invoked Clinton's name constantly in 2000--"restoring honor and integrity in the WH" ha!--to think Bush won't be a factor now is laughable.

Zouk, for once, we agree. McCain is a loser. The media loves the Straight Talk Express, but how quickly we forget that the man changed his RELIGION last year to try to applease the American Taliban/Religiuos Right (even Willard hasn't flipped-flopped on that).

So Zouk, does that mean if McCain is nominated, you'll vote for Hillary or Obama?

Posted by: uckeleg | January 18, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

McCain was the only Republican implicated in the Keating Five scandal, yet today he lectures his party and his president about "the corrupting influence" of money in politics. He rails against the so-called "wealthy special interests" and their ability to buy access to elected officials, yet this is precisely what the Keating Five scandal was all about. And, of course, under McCain's current standard, a politician who takes a principled position that may benefit a donor is corrupt, even if no law has been violated.

The John McCain of old should be thankful that his political fate wasn't determined by John McCain the reformer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the threadjack.

For those interested in why the current recession-avoidance package (all versions, Dem and GOP) is stupid, read this:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/EconomicHandoutsWeDontNeed.aspx

My thoughts:

1) Recessions can be a good thing, if you think long term health of the economy
2) $250b pumped into a $13t economy is practically a rounding error
3) Not a good idea to introduce moral hazards (by letting marginal homebuyers/speculators off the hook)

Posted by: JD | January 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

uT OH. THE GOP HAS THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE PLAN. tHE DEM'S WANT UNIVERSAL COVERAGE, LIKE ANY OTHER NON-THIRD WORLD COUNTRY. THE GOP HAS THIS:

"The doctor will see your credit now

Sandy Huffaker / Getty Images fileThe folks who invented the credit score for lenders are hard at work developing a similar tool for hospitals. But privacy advocates are worried that errors will cause trouble with any attempt to create a health-related risk score.
"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

uckeleg,

It's hard to say what effect the economy will have on these races. Some of the backlash may fall against Bush and, by association, these Republicans in Congress. On the other hand, Bush isn't on the ticket in November, and people will be focusing on a presidential race in which the Republican candidate will probably largely distance himself from Bush. Given, too, that the Democrats control both houses of Congress and that Republicans historically tend to talk better on the economy (an arguable point, I know), and many Republicans may actually be in good positions to argue that they offer the better alternative on the economy.

It's hard to say what voters will be thinking ten months from now, but 20 seats may yet be a rosy prediction. It's possible, of course, but it will also depend on what coattails the presidential candidates have and what issues the national election hinges on. Last election, marriage initiatives on many ballots swung the presidential election, and should something similar weigh alongside the economy by November, these seats could very much go either way.

Posted by: blert | January 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Nice to know that even if a GOP candidate took the White House there is no chance of him having a rubber-stamp Congress.

Posted by: thecrisis | January 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

CC-i wouldnt worry about the senate/house/gov seats so soon, were still in a primary frenzy right now.

interesting list for the senate. stil barring a HRC nomination, we may still see a 5-7 seat pick up for the dems.

10.Mississippi (OPEN Republican-held seat; Lott resigned)-ok no argument there.
9. Alaska (Republican Sen. Ted Stevens running for re-election)-corruption is still a good reason to kick out an incumbment, plus im sure its inexpensive to run ads up in the great white north
8. Oregon (Republican Sen. Gordon Smith running for re-election)-50/50 shot, depending on the nominee.
7. Maine (Republican Sen. Susan Collins running for re-election)same odds here.
6. Minnesota (Republican Sen. Norm Coleman running for re-election)-i would at least rank this race in the top 5.
5. Colorado (OPEN Republican-held seat; Sen. Wayne Allard retiring)kick this race in the top 3.
4. Louisiana (Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu running for re-election)-really? i wouldnt even rank this race.
3. New Hampshire (Republican Sen. John Sununu running for re-election)-make this race number two and a seat change over for the dems.
2. New Mexico (OPEN Republican-held seat; Sen. Pete Domenici retiring)-the gop primary should be fun to watch.
1. Virginia (OPEN Republican-held seat; Sen. John Warner retiring)-can we just give the seat to mark warner already?

plus the fact that the DSCC has been out raising the RSCC handily, the senate will stay blue.

the house side, looks increasingly grim for the gop. the dem's should start chanting this word "obstruction" every time a bill doesnt get passed. best case senario is that they pick up 14 more seats, and hold the 06 pick-ups.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | January 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"bsimon: How so? The latter statement seems to support the former."

Hmm. Perhaps I was thinking they had 52 right now. Is it really 51, counting Lieberman? That would put the Dems at 59, if everything on The Line flipped, is that math correct? If so, I stand corrected & rightfully chastised...

Posted by: bsimon | January 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

How is Ted Stevens' seat not higher than 9th?

If he is re-elected, we should sell Alaska to the Russians...

Posted by: bigred1120 | January 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Are Thomas Jefferson,Ben Franklin,James Madison,George Washington kooks too?

Posted by: gary2547poh | January 18, 2008 01:47 PM


No, but technically, they were traitors. Until we won the war.

Posted by: JD | January 18, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Being from Colorado and familiar with the candidates, I think CC let his lunch with Bob Schaeffer in DC a few months ago influence him a little too much. Schaeffer is affable and friendly, but definitely on the far, far right wing of his party (he's a favorite of the Focus on the Family/James Dobson crowd--think of Huckabee's statement about how he wants to change the Constitution to match the Bible, not the other way around). He received the nomination only after Dick Wadhems' pleadings to every electable Colorado Republican proved in vain (none of them, especially former Rep Scott McInnis, wanted to run this cycle because they saw it as a career-ending loss).

That said, I'd move Colorado up only one slot. Would move to second if Ds had considered recent results and nominated more of a more centrist like Gov. Ritter or Sen. Salazar. Mark Udall is a skilled politician and campaigner (and has that great name and eyebrows to prove it) but he is farther to the left than most moderate Colorado Ds (but not nearly as far to the left as Schaeffer is to the right).

Posted by: malis | January 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: How so? The latter statement seems to support the former.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 18, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"Last fall it looked as though Democrats could make a legitimate run at 60 seats in November."
and
"Just one of the ten seats on this month's line is held by a Democrat."


Does not the latter contradict the former?

.

Posted by: bsimon | January 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

it makes a difference who gets elected to congress?why?They all still collect thier money from defence contractors.We the people do not mean a thing anymore.The only one of them who wants to return ownership of this country to the people to which it belongs is Dr.Ron Paul.The media calls him a kook.Why? Are Thomas Jefferson,Ben Franklin,James Madison,George Washington kooks too?

Posted by: gary2547poh | January 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
Two minor quibbles. Doesn't Robin Hayes' house seat have to be on the line when polling (albeit Democratic polling) shows him losing? He didn't even respond with a poll of his own disputing that notion. Also, if you have 9 Republican seats on the Senate line, don't you think your estimate of only a 2-5 seat gain is a bit low? I think the ceiling is a bit higher, maybe 6-7 seats. I assume you got the two number by figuring that the Democrats pick up in NH, NM, and VA, and lose Landrieu in LA, but I think say 3-7 is a more reasonable range at this current moment.

Posted by: brianros | January 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

You are right on LA - sorry. I thought you meant the Shreveport district.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 18, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for posting this--was definitely mixing the House and Senate lines.

Agree almost entirely with the Senate line--I think CO may be more likely to turnover at this point than LA (esp given that Landrieu's brother just easily won re-election and all of the retirements in the LA delegation)

The House line indicates how bad things are for the NRCC. I think 1-8 are all likely to turnover at this point. Given how bad the economy is getting, the Dems may pick up another 20 seats in the House this year.

They're really in trouble since last cycle, the NRCC and RNC were able to pump money into these races--now, the NRCC is broke, and the RNC will have to spend all of it's money trying to prop up whichever
loser they finally nominate--as he will likely be broke. All of them, except Willard, already are!

Posted by: uckeleg | January 18, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I think you confused 10 and 9 on the House side.

Shreveport CA?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for posting this--was definitely mixing the House and Senate lines.

Agree almost entirely with the Senate line--I think CO may be more likely to turnover at this point than LA (esp given that Landrieu's brother just easily won re-election and all of the retirements in the LA delegation)

The House line indicates how bad things are for the NRCC. I think 1-8 are all likely to turnover at this point. Given how bad the economy is getting, the Dems may pick up another 20 seats in the House this year.

Posted by: uckeleg | January 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow, 9-1 in both houses.

The likelihood of Dems increasing their majorities in both houses might be something the GOP prez nominee might use to rally the troops to at least get out and vote for him.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 18, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company