Barbara Mikulski

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

bob ehrlich.

Why would Maryland vote in a former Governor who couldn't even win reelection? That puts him in a far weaker position than William Weld or Tony Knowles.

Ehrlich has basically said he's done with politics anyway.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He's not going to win though. If O'Malley ends up unpopular he might be able to retake the governorship in 2010, but he can't win a Senate seat.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He wouldn't stand a prayer against Van Hollen or Sarbanes obviously.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What I love about Maryland is O'Malley only won 1 city and 4 counties, and one of those counties might as well have been a statistical tie. And he still won, and by a rather healthy margin. A 50/50 election in Maryland would have the Democrat winning only Baltimore and 2 counties.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

note to brtd:  i am NOT predicting bob ehrilich to win.  so dont go start a million threads about my 'crazy predictions'

i am stating that i do believe bob ehrlich would be the strongest republican candidate.

The question was "Who do you think will replace Barbara Mikulski?" and you simply replied "bob ehrlich"

As for being the strongest Republican candidate, that's like being the winner of a snail race.

O'Malley won 5 counties and one city.

Do you know how to count? I wouldn't be surprised if you can't of course.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You trust a site that only puts up preliminary results and never updates it after the initial election over Dave's maps?

Dave has said never to use cnn.com or other secondary sources as sources when making maps because they are unreliable. It's like citing wikipedia as a source.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Steele did better among black voters than Kerry, but worse among white voters. Had he done as well as Bush among whites, he would've lost by about 2 points. So he would've come closer, but Steele wouldn't win Maryland even in a neutral year. And politically he's done now that he's been written off as a racebaiting joke.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I was almost waiting for you to mention Montana and North Dakota.

First, Montana has a tradition of electing Democratic senators. Burns was the first Republican senator from that state in ages.

Second, North Dakota also has a tradition of electing Democratic senators. Both Dorgan and Conrad are fairly popular (though, Conrad could have been in huge danger had Hoeven ran for his seat). That's one of the only areas where the Democrats are competitive in ND.

Third: Maine has two very popular Republican senators and hasn't elected many Democrats to the senate in the past 50 years.

Fourth: Chaffee was popular. So was his son. It also helps that they were RINOs.

Maryland has not elected a Republican to the senate in decades as well. It has a strong Democratic tradition and shows no signs of moving to the Republicans.

Also, what part of "read BRTD's post" didn't you understand? Steele's name has went down the sh**tter.

The notion of Steele winning a senate race in Maryland, especially now that his name has been tarnished, is hackery. Your arguements all fail hard. End of discussion.

How has his name been 'tarnished'?

Did you even bother reading BRTD's post?

Yeah with the accustions of race-baiting but look at the facts Maryland has a large African-American population,It's of course realiable in terms of voting Democratic,and Steele was going to have to get all the votes he could in order to win and with himself being a Republican that can be viewed as acceptable to African-Americans so he tried to shave off alot of votes from the Democratic canidate by trying to appeal to black voters. It makes sense if you think about it.   

But it turned off white voters. Steele got 25% of the black vote but barely won the white vote. White voters turned off by him are not going to vote for him now and he lost by double digits. He's done.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nor do I really understand how his name has been 'tarnished' since the election. 

Like what all the people from Maryland said, his race-baiting. He's now seen as a race-baiting joke.

I've made the point before - but Steele came closer than any Republican has in getting elected to the Senate from Maryland since 1976 or thereabouts.  He lost 54%-44%, but the race was anamoly in that it was one in a Kerry state that was closer than the latter's victory there two years earlier.  The fact that it was 2006 and Steele could come that close makes me think that even if he couldn't win in say an open-seat election in 2010, he could make it close again.  Nor do I really understand how his name has been 'tarnished' since the election. 

Apparently, race-baiting isn't cool.

Maryland has a large black population and Michael Steele is black so it is only natural that he attempts to appeal to that voting bloc. Besides Maryland's whites are pretty liberal to begin with.

Wrong.

Bush won 55% of whites in Maryland. The rural parts of Maryland on the panhandle and eastern shore are heavily white and very conservative. So is exurban Baltimore.

Steele barely won Maryland whites though, due to 2006 situation + his racebaiting. But even if he had done as well as Bush, he would've narrowly lost. So even in a neutral race, Steele loses.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Maryland Whites are liberal. lolz. Glad to see me and the rest of my family came out as "told" by people here on this thread.

One example does not disprove a statement. I could use myself as an example that North Dakota whites are liberal.