A McCain victory makes retaking the Senate almost impossible

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Think that'll hurt him in the primaries? Right now the GOP needs to pick up only one seat with the presidency to retake it. However, they have only one seat they have a very good chance at (Louisiana), and the odds there look 50/50 at best, and they'll almost certainly at least one seat elsewhere. (Out of MN, CO and NH). They probably have an outside chance in SD, but the sympathy factor has probably blown that chance away (especially when you take into account what Dakotan people are like, from someone who knows that first hand).

So if McCain's elected, Napolitano appoints his replacement, and the GOP loses another seat. This basically all but assures the Democrats hold the Senate. How much will this hurt in the primary?

[socaldem]

Think that'll hurt him in the primaries? Right now the GOP needs to pick up only one seat with the presidency to retake it. However, they have only one seat they have a very good chance at (Louisiana), and the odds there look 50/50 at best, and they'll almost certainly at least one seat elsewhere. (Out of MN, CO and NH). They probably have an outside chance in SD, but the sympathy factor has probably blown that chance away (especially when you take into account what Dakotan people are like, from someone who knows that first hand).

So if McCain's elected, Napolitano appoints his replacement, and the GOP loses another seat. This basically all but assures the Democrats hold the Senate. How much will this hurt in the primary?

Unless, of course, its a McCain-Lieberman ticket...

Or if Lieberman gets an appointment...

Or if Lieberman caucuses with the GOP...

Or if Biden is on the national Dem ticket and forgoes reelection...

[Rob]

So if McCain's elected, Napolitano appoints his replacement, and the GOP loses another seat. This basically all but assures the Democrats hold the Senate.

I'm fairly sure Napolitano has to appoint a Republican under state law, so it's a moot point.

[Democratic Hawk]

So if McCain's elected, Napolitano appoints his replacement, and the GOP loses another seat. This basically all but assures the Democrats hold the Senate.

I'm fairly sure Napolitano has to appoint a Republican under state law, so it's a moot point.

Yes, Arizona is one of a handful of Western states, which require the governor to make an interim appointment of a person with the same party affiliation as the previous incumbent

Dave

[Sam Spade]

I love it when BRTD posts threads without looking up to see how wrong he is. 

[Verily]

It's a reasonable assumption, at least.

[Adlai Stevenson]

If Lieberman switches to caucus with the GOP then that more or less guarantees the Democrats taking back the Senate with a vengeance in 2008.

[Keystone Phil]

I thought the same thing, BRTD.



The only thing that stands in the way is...the law.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I'll go with that.  I can see the GOP losing a net of 2 seats for the 111th Senate, no matter who is their nominee for President.  I'm going to go ahead and give them Louisiana, depending on what happens with Governor Kathleen Blanco this November, but I'll give Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota to the Democrats.  That would be a net loss of 2 for the Republicans, and give the Democrats a 53-47 majority for the 111th Senate in 2009-2010.  If Guiliani or Romney happen to be the nominee, then I could see New Hampshire staying GOP, but thats a big if.  I give NH a 40% chance of staying GOP without Rudy or Mitt, and a 60% chance with either of them.  If McCain is the nominee, I could see Colorado potentially staying GOP, but still not likely.  If Huckabee or Brownback is the nominee, then all three will definitely go Democrat.  Right now, until I see formidable candidates, I'll keep Mississippi and Oklahoma with the GOP, but with the knowledge they both could switch, thus giving the Democrats a net gain of 4 and a 55-45 majority.

[Keystone Phil]

By the way, I am saving this thread for 2008. My thread claiming that the Dems taking in the Senate in 2006 was nearly impossible was bumped so I'd love to bring this one back. And you thought BRTD was bad with the gloating....   

[Adlai Stevenson]

I predict that Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Oregon will all elect Democratic Senators in 2008.  I also think Louisiana still leans Democrat as Landrieu's approval ratings are good and the best candidate statewide, Bobby Jindal, will be removed as a threat if he is Governor.  I predict the 111th Senate will be:

DEMOCRATS + 4 = 55
REPUBLICANS - 4 = 45

You can preserve this for posterity. 

[Reaganfan]

I predict that Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Oregon will all elect Democratic Senators in 2008.  I also think Louisiana still leans Democrat as Landrieu's approval ratings are good and the best candidate statewide, Bobby Jindal, will be removed as a threat if he is Governor.  I predict the 111th Senate will be:

DEMOCRATS + 4 = 55
REPUBLICANS - 4 = 45

You can preserve this for posterity. 

MN, NH stay GOP
CO goes DEM
LA goes GOP

...in my opinion.

[HardRCafé]

I'll keep Mississippi and Oklahoma with the GOP, but with the knowledge they both could switch, thus giving the Democrats a net gain of 4 and a 55-45 majority.

What magic knowledge is this?

[The Dowager Mod]

A law forcing the governor to appoint by party seems unenforcable, How long does one need to be a Republican for instance.

[Verily]

A law forcing the governor to appoint by party seems unenforcable, How long does one need to be a Republican for instance.

I have a feeling violating the spirit of the law would get Janet Napolitano (or anyone else) crucified. Of course, she could always nominate an absolute lunatic who'd be sure to lose in 2010.

[Gabu]

A law forcing the governor to appoint by party seems unenforcable, How long does one need to be a Republican for instance.

I don't know about Arizona, but Wyoming has it so that the incumbent party gives a list of three candidates that it finds acceptable, and then the governor chooses one to appoint.