Rothenberg: Democrats could get to 60 Senate seats by 2010

[cp]

getting back to the general topic at hand . . .

Rothenberg's argument is accurate insofar as it is mathematical. Because of the number of seats in play and the margins of victory for past elections in those states, it is easily within the realm of politics for the Democrats to gain a net 9 seats in the next 2 cycles.

However, politics is more than math (thank god). It's difficult to see how the 2008 contenders are going to play out let alone the ones in 2010. The 2010 midterms are going to be on issues that few can predict today (picture 'macaca' in 2003). I think if the Democrats have truely reformed their institutional structure and ideological approach like Dean and others have said, then it's possible they will have the waves of good fortune that Rove had when he took the political scene by storm in 2000.

It's a nice thought, regardless.

[Cubby]

I like Susan Collins. I wouldn't mind her getting re-elected.

Sununu is too conservative, although he probably got the message of last November and will moderate his views as the election progresses. He and Gregg are the only pro-life Senators left in the region.

What are the GOP's best three chances to pick up a seat in 2008 besides Landrieu?

I hope she manages to hold on, she is a great lady for not changing her views even though LA's demographics have changed. Breaux sucked up to Bush even when it wasn't necessary.

Tester barely winning after leading for the whole race makes me wonder how much longer our good luck can continue in Montana. After all, the state still voted 59% for Bush and swung to Dole against the national tide in 1996.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Tester barely winning after leading for the whole race makes me wonder how much longer our good luck can continue in Montana. After all, the state still voted 59% for Bush and swung to Dole against the national tide in 1996.

Montana was the only state in the country where control of a state legislature flipped from Democrat to Republican in 2006.  In fact, Democrats nearly lost both houses -- their majority in the State Senate is because of a party switch.

[Verily]

The Democrats would have held the Montana Senate without the floor-crosser; it was split 25-25. Also, the loss of the House in Montana should come as no surprise, given that the Democrats only won it in the first place because the Constitution and Republican Parties split the vote in the district the Constitution Party won this time.

[Cubby]

The Democrats would have held the Montana Senate without the floor-crosser; it was split 25-25. Also, the loss of the House in Montana should come as no surprise, given that the Democrats only won it in the first place because the Constitution and Republican Parties split the vote in the district the Constitution Party won this time.

Did I read that correctly, the Constitution Party won a district!?

[Gustaf]

The Democrats would have held the Montana Senate without the floor-crosser; it was split 25-25. Also, the loss of the House in Montana should come as no surprise, given that the Democrats only won it in the first place because the Constitution and Republican Parties split the vote in the district the Constitution Party won this time.

Did I read that correctly, the Constitution Party won a district!?

Yep. Only in Montana.

The tide will almost certainly have changed by 2010, it's unusual for a party to win several times in a row (traditionally the party winning the presidency makes gains and then sustains losses in the off-years, evening things out. The GOP bucked the trend in 2002 but paid for it in 2006). I see no reason yet to change my prediction of Democrats gaining 2 seats in 2008. In 2010, who knows...way, way off into the future.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The Democrats would have held the Montana Senate without the floor-crosser; it was split 25-25. Also, the loss of the House in Montana should come as no surprise, given that the Democrats only won it in the first place because the Constitution and Republican Parties split the vote in the district the Constitution Party won this time.

Did I read that correctly, the Constitution Party won a district!?

56% - 44%!

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=291429

To be fair, the Constitution Party member was a former Republican State Representative from 1995 to 2001; he switched to the Constitution Party in 2000 but lost his race for re-election (against a Democrat), 50.7 - 49.3%.

He got 42.9% of the vote in 2002 (again, as a Constitution Party member), and lost by 7 votes after a court overruled his initial victory in 2004.  Fourth time's the charm.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The only reason the GOP gained in Montana is because the Democrats picked up lots of seats in 2004 because of backlash against Martz (similar to the situation in Ohio last year). Baucus isn't going anywhere.

[Deano963]

The only reason the GOP gained in Montana is because the Democrats picked up lots of seats in 2004 because of backlash against Martz (similar to the situation in Ohio last year). Baucus isn't going anywhere.

Another reason the Republicans gained seats in the Montana state lagislature in '06 was b/c almost all of the MT Democratic Party's resources and money was put into Jon Tester's Senate race. They had bascially no money whatsoever left over to spend on state legislative races. IMO, it was the right decision, and obviously this won't a be a problem for the MT Dems agian in '08 (Max Baucus's Senate reelection race is different b/c he is the incumbent and he is well-funded already and he is not likely to draw a strong challenger anyways, so he won't be a drain on the party, AND Brian Schweitzer and his stratospheric approval ratings are up for reelection as well) or in 2010 b/c neither Tester or Baucus will be up for reelection. I think the Democrats will win the MT legislature back in the near future.

[Keystone Phil]

The only reason the GOP gained in Montana is because the Democrats picked up lots of seats in 2004 because of backlash against Martz (similar to the situation in Ohio last year). Baucus isn't going anywhere.

Another reason the Republicans gained seats in the Montana state lagislature in '06 was b/c almost all of the MT Democratic Party's resources and money was put into Jon Tester's Senate race. They had bascially no money whatsoever left over to spend on state legislative races. IMO, it was the right decision, and obviously this won't a be a problem for the MT Dems agian in '08 (Max Baucus's Senate reelection race is different b/c he is the incumbent and he is well-funded already and he is not likely to draw a strong challenger anyways, so he won't be a drain on the party, AND Brian Schweitzer and his stratospheric approval ratings are up for reelection as well) or in 2010 b/c neither Tester or Baucus will be up for reelection. I think the Democrats will win the MT legislature back in the near future.

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

[Rob]

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

Because he's a leftie who doesn't fit the state at all. And that makes his victory all the sweeter.

[Keystone Phil]

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

Because he's a leftie who doesn't fit the state at all. And that makes his victory all the sweeter.

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

Because he's a leftie who doesn't fit the state at all. And that makes his victory all the sweeter.

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

Yes. Your point?

[Mr.Phips]

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

Because he's a leftie who doesn't fit the state at all. And that makes his victory all the sweeter.

Then why did Brian Schweitzer almost beat Burns in 2000?

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

[Rob]

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

Yes, obviously (although I doubt Tester would have run in that case). But who cares? Now we have a Senator who wants to repeal the PATRIOT Act and immediately withdraw from Iraq. I'm glad we had a narrow victory with a liberal instead of a solid victory with DLCer Morrison.

Burns has been pounding the state with the TV ad message that "Tax-hike Tester is too liberal for Montana" and would have voted differently from Montana's other senator, Democrat Max Baucus, on the Bush tax cuts, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the energy bill, Patriot Acts I and II, the flag amendment and the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts.

He's also pro-choice and opposes ANWR drilling. It must irritate you to no end knowing that he was elected in a state that voted 59 percent for Bush... it would be like Jim Talent winning in Rhode Island.

[Keystone Phil]

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

Because he's a leftie who doesn't fit the state at all. And that makes his victory all the sweeter.

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

Yes. Your point?

Just making sure you guys weren't on your whole "Montana is going to be a Dem state in two years!" kick anymore.

Then why did Brian Schweitzer almost beat Burns in 2000?

I don't think Schweitzer is a liberal at least not to the extent that Tester is a liberal.

It must irritate you to no end knowing that he was elected in a state that voted 59 percent for Bush... it would be like Jim Talent winning in Rhode Island.

I do enjoy when people blow things out of proportion. No, it doesn't irritate me at all. I don't like Tester and wouldn't vote for him but he isn't my Senator and he does provide a good laugh (not that I am really laughing at him since he has proven himself to be a very smart man. I just find it amusing that someone that looks the way he does is in the U.S. Senate).

[Rob]

Fair enough. Liberals really did luck out, though- Burns should have retired and allowed Rehberg to run for Senate.

[Keystone Phil]

Fair enough. Liberals really did luck out, though- Burns should have retired and allowed Rehberg to run for Senate.

Yeah, I was saying that from the beginning.

[Deano963]

The only reason the GOP gained in Montana is because the Democrats picked up lots of seats in 2004 because of backlash against Martz (similar to the situation in Ohio last year). Baucus isn't going anywhere.

Another reason the Republicans gained seats in the Montana state lagislature in '06 was b/c almost all of the MT Democratic Party's resources and money was put into Jon Tester's Senate race. They had bascially no money whatsoever left over to spend on state legislative races. IMO, it was the right decision, and obviously this won't a be a problem for the MT Dems agian in '08 (Max Baucus's Senate reelection race is different b/c he is the incumbent and he is well-funded already and he is not likely to draw a strong challenger anyways, so he won't be a drain on the party, AND Brian Schweitzer and his stratospheric approval ratings are up for reelection as well) or in 2010 b/c neither Tester or Baucus will be up for reelection. I think the Democrats will win the MT legislature back in the near future.

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

1) - What in the world does that question have to do with anything I just said?

2) - Well, one reason why he "only won by about a point" is probably b/c he was outspent by Conrad Burns by $4 million in state where every dollar goes a long way:

http://www.opensecrets.org/states/election.asp?State=MT&year=2006

[Mr.Phips]

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

Yes, obviously (although I doubt Tester would have run in that case). But who cares? Now we have a Senator who wants to repeal the PATRIOT Act and immediately withdraw from Iraq. I'm glad we had a narrow victory with a liberal instead of a solid victory with DLCer Morrison.

Burns has been pounding the state with the TV ad message that "Tax-hike Tester is too liberal for Montana" and would have voted differently from Montana's other senator, Democrat Max Baucus, on the Bush tax cuts, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the energy bill, Patriot Acts I and II, the flag amendment and the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts.

He's also pro-choice and opposes ANWR drilling. It must irritate you to no end knowing that he was elected in a state that voted 59 percent for Bush... it would be like Jim Talent winning in Rhode Island.

Not quite.  Montana is not an evangelical Conservative state like states in the deep south.  It is more of a libertarian state and is majority pro-choice.  Notice how Tester is strongly against gun control?  That plays well in Montana.

[Mr.Phips]

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

Because he's a leftie who doesn't fit the state at all. And that makes his victory all the sweeter.

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

Yes. Your point?

Just making sure you guys weren't on your whole "Montana is going to be a Dem state in two years!" kick anymore.

Then why did Brian Schweitzer almost beat Burns in 2000?

I don't think Schweitzer is a liberal at least not to the extent that Tester is a liberal.

Tester is hardly a liberal.  He is against gun control and a lot of other things that liberals support.

[Rob]

Not quite.  Montana is not an evangelical Conservative state like states in the deep south.  It is more of a libertarian state and is majority pro-choice.  Notice how Tester is strongly against gun control?  That plays well in Montana.

It's not a religious right state, but that doesn't make it socially liberal. Montanans tend to be economically conservative, too.

Tester is hardly a liberal.  He is against gun control and a lot of other things that liberals support.

I'm a liberal, and I oppose gun control. Tester is left-wing on almost every issue...

... although nobody would consider Tester an anti-globalization activist, his position on international trade is more in line with the protesters who shut down Seattle in 1999 than with the Democratic Leadership Council.

In addition to the examples I gave above.

[Mr.Phips]

Not quite.  Montana is not an evangelical Conservative state like states in the deep south.  It is more of a libertarian state and is majority pro-choice.  Notice how Tester is strongly against gun control?  That plays well in Montana.

It's not a religious right state, but that doesn't make it socially liberal. Montanans tend to be economically conservative, too.

Tester is hardly a liberal.  He is against gun control and a lot of other things that liberals support.

I'm a liberal, and I oppose gun control. Tester is left-wing on almost every issue...

... although nobody would consider Tester an anti-globalization activist, his position on international trade is more in line with the protesters who shut down Seattle in 1999 than with the Democratic Leadership Council.

In addition to the examples I gave above.

Being pro fair-trade makes Tester a populist.  Free trade is not popular in Montana.

[minionofmidas]

Tell me again, why did Tester only win by about a point?

Because he's a leftie who doesn't fit the state at all. And that makes his victory all the sweeter.

Then why did Brian Schweitzer almost beat Burns in 2000?

So you're admitting that if Burns didn't make totally outrageous comments and wasn't one of the most recognizably corrupt members of Congress tied to one of the most recognizably corrupt men in the country, Tester would have been owned?

Because Burns already was Burns back in 2000.

[Keystone Phil]

Tester is hardly a liberal.  He is against gun control and a lot of other things that liberals support.

Hahaha.

Good one!