The race is a dead heat here in Oregon! (4.00 / 2)

We've caught up to Smith in the polls, but we're still statistically tied. The good news is that all Smith's nasty smears apparently are working against him considering his approval ratings continue to tank.

If we get to 58 with an Obama Presidency, there is a lot that we can accomplish, like passing the EFCA which you mentioned. BTW, Merkley fought to pass the card check in Oregon as House Speaker and I know he'll do the same if elected to the Senate.

Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley

---

by: sarahlane @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 17:44:28 PM CDT

Uh, what about health care? (4.00 / 1)

Was that wish list in any order?  I would put election reform at the top of the list.  The best way to maintain a majority is to make it a lot tougher for the opposition to steal the elections, since they can't win a battle of ideas.

As for things not on the list, health care has to be way up high, doesn't it?  Or am I misinterpreting your criteria?

---

by: rickd24 @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 17:53:28 PM CDT

As much as I agree... (0.00 / 0)

Healthcare to me is the single most important issue.   I hope to see Obama move to pass that in the first 100 days.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 23:03:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Health care is certainly self-reinforcing (4.00 / 1)

It is like Social Security in building a bond between voters and the Dem Party, asssuming the Dems could get a good bill done.  That's why the R's worked so hard to kill it under Clinton.

I do think with 58 votes most filibusters could be broken, since there are all of the 2004 winners up for relection in 2010 and, again, many more R's than D's.  There will be more retirements, and several not to hard righters like Voino and Snowe are up for reelection.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 18:20:44 PM CDT

Lieberman (0.00 / 0)

I have a hard time predicting Lieberman's actions, but I suspect he won't participate in filibustering most non-military related Democratic bills.

I could be wrong and wouldn't be totally surprised if he just went with the "screw you" approach towards Obama and the Democrats, but I still pencil him in as a Democrat on most domestic votes.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 19:28:51 PM CDT

I agree (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman may be a jerk, but I have a hard time imagining him voting against Democrats on most domestic issues out of spite.

---

by: Kanamit @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 19:45:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He's an attention slut (0.00 / 0)

Don't kid yourself. He'll have a 'Lieberman-Insert Douchy Republican here' plan on every issue under the sun. The Lieberman plan will be more 'centrist' and 'measured' because the 'American people reject partisanship'. The point of the entire thing will be to get Joe Lieberman on TV. Lieberman is a media creature and as long as the media covers him, he's useful to his backers --- even if his vote is worthless.

John McCain

---

by: joejoejoe @ Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 04:04:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

60 Seats (0.00 / 0)

When was 60 seats ever considered realistic?  Everything that I've read on the subject has always concluded that 60 seats was out of reach.

---

by: Kane @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 20:19:41 PM CDT

Another way to 60 seats (0.00 / 0)

President Obama just needs to pick a few Republican senators from states with Democratic governors for various positions around the world (ambasador to Antartica).

---

by: gdesignr @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 22:25:43 PM CDT

Maybe he can put (0.00 / 0)

Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter in his cabinet or something.

Republican Senators knowing their seats will flip won't accept a position unless they're really angry or something.  

---

by: dfr1417 @ Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 00:00:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Idunno (0.00 / 0)

8 seems most realistically achievable to me (all the ones you listed except Mississippi -- I'll believe that happens when I see it; I do think Hagan, Merkley, and Franken will win). That gives us 59, or 58 minus Holy Joe.

But I think it's still too early to count out Martin in GA, Kleeb in NE, Noriega in TX, Allen in ME, and Rice in OK. None of those is likely to flip, but debates can change the game. Allen's numbers are definitely the most disappointing, but if he won't go after Collins hard, well, it's unlikely he'll win.

I'll hope that LaRocco and Slattery and even Carter in WY can perhaps spring a miracle, but none of those seem anywhere near achievable now. But I'm still hopeful we can get to 60 -- I'll say with Martin and Rice.  

---

by: Ron @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 22:42:55 PM CDT

Don't count anything out... (0.00 / 0)

...you never know when Mark Foley is going to happen...or Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, William Jefferson, Bob Ney, The VP shooting someone in the face, in this era of instant news, things can change pretty quick.  If the campaigns down 10+ are laying the ground work with aggressive field programs and focused messaging, they could capitalize on any significant event over the next 40+ days and flip the race upside down pretty quick.  On the other hand, just as easily, things could go the other direction.

Where there is a race that you think is unlikely, but the state is potentially in play for the Presidential, consider giving to the state's coordinated campaign (if they have one) or give to a strong House campaign within that State on the logic that it will boost the Senate candidate within that CD.  If anyone is considering giving to Mark Warner...he won already and has huge resources, give your money to VA Victory or one of the many aggressive and exciting house campaigns within Virginia.

The AL House CD states are interesting as well, Alaska not only has Stevens/Begich statewide, they also have Young/Berkowitz, we have a good chance at a 2 for 1 pickup there (it was extremely likely before the Palin selection, less so now, but still likely.)

I think we will walk away with 8 minus Lieberman, giving us 58 seats at the end of the day, more importantly is the losses.  The GOP will lose several of their most powerful/tenured/influential Senators going into the next Congress.  John Warner will be gone (retired, not running), Ted Stevens will likely be gone, Pajama Pete will be gone (retired), Former NRSC Chair Liddy Dole may be gone, Minority Leader McConnell may still get upset, Minority Whip John Kyl and John McCain will possibly be shadows of their former selves in the aftermath of this Presidential election and the shifting sand in Arizona which may see multiple Red-to-Blue flips.  If McCain loses in November, I don't think he would take on Gov Napolitano if she were to run for his seat in 2010.

Every time the majority shifts, whether it is a full flip or just a significant change in the margin, other changes happen.  Moderates slide either more to the majority side, closer to their base.  Some change parties all together.  Retirements and Appointments will happen.  We've seen health issues over the last 3 years effect several Senators, it would be foolish not to expect similar impacts going forward given the ages of many of those in the Senate today.  The more votes we get, even in losses can have impacts beyond the win or loss of an election.

If we take the Presidency and 6+ Senate Seats, look for cannibalism within the GOP.  Blame will be focused on a few individuals and they will be gutted and pushed aside quickly.  Leadership may change (hopefully it will change on our side as well) and philosophies and behaviors within the Senate may change drastically.  Some GOP Senators may see their only opportunity to get things they want done achieved is to barter their votes on key Democratic Priorities, they may be acting in a CYA style fearing their own re-election troubles in 2010/2012.

If Nevada goes Blue in Presidential/House races, current NRSC Chair John Ensign will be a wild card.  He has to figure out how to hold his seat in 2012, while likely being the scapegoat of the GOP for losses in 2008.  To my knowledge he has never done anything remarkable, he is pro-life in a state that is overwhelmingly pro-choice and not a "darling" of any segment of the population/political spectrum.  I do support his fight against the expansion of eminent domain - surely we can find a good Nevada Democrat to pick up that cause when they pick up his seat, right?

Play hard for every vote.

---

by: mp @ Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 00:05:21 AM CDT

You're Nevada Political Analysis is Very Inaccurate (0.00 / 0)

No offense MP but your political analysis of Nevada politics is flat out wrong.

1. There's no way of knowing what the political environment will be like in 2012,4 years from now. So that on face makes your argument about John Ensign's seat being up for grabs, highly speculative wishful thinking at best.

2. Your argument that Ensign will be weak because of GOP losses in 2008 makes no sense on a variety of levels.

A) It assumes that people will blame him for the losses. This is highly unlikely considering that the political climate for the GOP was horrible this year, particularly in the Senate.

B) Blame for political losses is an insiders sport. The 60 year old democrat hating life long Republican probably doesn't even know he's chairman of the NRSC. Hell in my experiences most people don't even know what the NRSC is even if they follow politics.

C) Your logic makes no sense. "I'm a Republican who's pissed off at the GOP losing a Senate seat four years ago, so I'm going to vote for a Democrat further reducing the number of Republicans in the senate?"

3. Even if Nevada goes blue in the Presidental Race, it won't, or the Congressional race this doesn't automatically bode trouble for Ensign because

A) There are a good number of democrats who like John Ensign and vote for him every year. You might disagree with their decision but its still true

B) There's no reason to believe that House seats that go blue in 2008 will still be blue in 2012.

C) 2012 is a Presidental election year. People won't remember, or care, what color the state went in the pass. Nevada is the epitomy of a purple state. It will always be a highly contested state. The Republican presidential campaign will certainly be a boon for his campaign

D) I honestly would not be surprised if John Ensign were the Republican Candidate or VP candidate in 2012. He has the street cred. (Fiscal Conservative, Religious Conservative, "Good looking", fairly young)

4. Republicans are the ultimate checklist voters. Particularly Nevada Republicans. Specifically, they're checklist has two boxes. Fiscal Conservative, Pro Life. Ensign meets both of those marks bigtime.

5. I vehemently disagree with your assesment of Ensign not being a "darling" within the state. People in Nevada, LOVE, John Ensign. Trust me. I'm involved in politics in Nevada. Of course he's not beloved on the left, merely tolerated by many, but in the rurals of Nevada he's an institution.

---

by: thechairman66 @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:30:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow. I had no idea... (0.00 / 0)

...that there were John Ensign lovers among this community.

This attack on my analysis is completely devoid of anything resembling logic or fact.

Clearly he doesn't get Democrats voting for him "every year" as he is a US Senator who has been re-elected exactly once.  He did not win in anything close to overwhelming fashion, while being challenged by a candidate who was ill through significant parts of the campaign season.

Ensign is already under fire within the party for his methods and actions as NRSC Chair, he clearly knows it is his position and he will likely suffer politically as a result if we (Democrats) do win 5+ seats.  He has stacked the NRSC with his cronies, and they haven't done much of anything to demonstrate value.

2012 is a long way off, yes.  But it is also a Presidential Election year, past events in elections constantly shape future efforts.  If Nevada goes Blue in 08, the Democratic Party will look into what investments they can make to keep it Blue in 2010 and 2012, to get House and Senate victories, as well as keep or exceed the electoral count from 2008.  If we are able to recruit good candidates, the DNC/DSCC/DCCC are likely to get heavily involved in Nevada.  On the other side, if Ensign is "taken down a peg" within the party, they will put less resources into protecting his seat.

The theory that solid GOP Voters don't know he is NRSC Chairman and won't vote vindictively as a result is just silly distraction.  Democrats don't need to win those solid GOP Voters, they need to win all the Democrats, with significant majorities of Indy and R/L Moderate voters.  The bigger impact comes in those "solid GOP voters" not being as active or engaged in support of Ensign.  This is compounded by increased efforts on the opposition side (Democrats having more resources/energy/enthusiasm then they typically have had).

Ensign as an institution is laughable, he has stronger favorables than other Nevada Federal Officials, but nothing in the realm of spectacular.

http://media.lvrj.com/images/2... 51% fav, 19% unfav, 25% neutral, 5% don't recognize - Certainly not showing strong reach beyond party.

Ensign has never demonstrated "Safety" in his seat, netting 55% with overwhelming funding advantages in 2000 (2 to 1$) and 2006 (nearly 3$ to 1).  His House elections in the 90's were close affairs with him taking 48 and 50% in his two wins.  He isn't a giant, he is very much mortal.

There is a certain degree of "what if" speculation involved looking down the road, but I am confident that my analysis is very plausible.  Your use of BOLD aside, I see nothing valid or discrediting in your post.  Thanks for playing.

---

by: mp @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 11:04:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]