Will the GOP ever be competetive again in the Northeast?

[Adlai Stevenson]

The Republicans lost NH-1, NH-2, CT-2, CT-5, NY-19, NY-20, NY-24, PA-4, PA-7, PA-8 and PA-10 in the 2006 congressional elections.

Obviously PA-4, PA-8 and PA-10 will be seen as competetive districts in 2008 - but what about the others?  Does the Republican Party have any hope of reclaiming them - in the short term at least?  Or is the Northeast region lost to the GOP for good.  A sidenote, part of the attraction of Giuliani as a Republican nominee would be his ability to make the Northeast competetive in some areas - Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and New Jersey and possibly Connecticut and Maine.

[RBH]

They might have a slight hope in Pennsylvania.

But their party is pretty much close to dead in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont

[Deano963]

The Republicans lost NH-1, NH-2, CT-2, CT-5, NY-19, NY-20, NY-24, PA-4, PA-7, PA-8 and PA-10 in the 2006 congressional elections.

They also lost two Senate seats (PA & RI) and a Governorship (NY), and literally hundreds of state legislature seats in the Northeast.

I think that Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe will be the last republicans elected to the Senate from Maine, at least for a long, long time. Their seats will go Dem when they retire, assuming neither is defeated. The exact same I would say is also the case with Sununu and Gregg. Arlen Specter's seat is almost gauranteed to go Dem when he retires aslo IMO. The same could be said of Douglas, Rell and Carcieri.

I know that republicans like to bash the Northeast in general, but they really can't afford to just forfeit an entire region of the country if they ever hope to come back to power. I just listed 5 Senate seats that they will almost undoubtedly lose when the current occupant either retires or is defeated. That's a big hurdle that will make it almost impossible for them to capture the Senate in the near future, given the fact that they are expected to lose more seats in the '08 and '10 elections and they are already in the minority.

I really don't see this trend turning around anytime soon, either. It's the price that the republican party is going to pay for aggressively pandering to the religious right for so long.

[Mr.Phips]

They will probably be competitive in the Northeast when the Dems are competitive in the South again.

[Jake]

I just listed 5 Senate seats that they will almost undoubtedly lose when the current occupant either retires or is defeated. That's a big hurdle that will make it almost impossible for them to capture the Senate in the near future, given the fact that they are expected to lose more seats in the '08 and '10 elections and they are already in the minority.

Landrieu's, Lincoln's, Nelson's, and Pryor's seats are as likely or more likely to fall than Specter's is when they retire.

And you don't see the trend turning around because you're looking at this very narrowly. The 2004 elections saw Democrats losing Senate seats in GA, NC, LA, SC, and FL. So, really it's all going to balance out in the long run. If you're going to look at regional polarisation, look at it in a balanced way. The Democrat's gains in the Northeast are coming on the heels of a forty year shedding of votes in the South.

[Verily]

I just listed 5 Senate seats that they will almost undoubtedly lose when the current occupant either retires or is defeated. That's a big hurdle that will make it almost impossible for them to capture the Senate in the near future, given the fact that they are expected to lose more seats in the '08 and '10 elections and they are already in the minority.

Landrieu's, Lincoln's, Nelson's, and Pryor's seats are as likely or more likely to fall than Specter's is when they retire.

And you don't see the trend turning around because you're looking at this very narrowly. The 2004 elections saw Democrats losing Senate seats in GA, NC, LA, SC, and FL. So, really it's all going to balance out in the long run. If you're going to look at regional polarisation, look at it in a balanced way. The Democrat's gains in the Northeast are coming on the heels of a forty year shedding of votes in the South.

Landrieu and Nelson, sure; Lincoln and Pryor, likely not. Democrats have the edge in any non-Presidential election in Arkansas still. There's a reason the Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not Lincoln and Pryor's seats. Hell, Pryor took his fairly recently and the GOP barely has a bench.

[TeePee4Prez]

Well they're not completely dead in PA and NJ.  There are still swaths of both states that are very conservative and NJ only has a 7-6 advantage for the Dems in the US House.  The GOP definitely has a shot in PA 4 and 10.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Never is a very long time and "the Northeast" is a very large and somewhat vague geographical area.

[Verily]

Never is a very long time and "the Northeast" is a very large and somewhat vague geographical area.

"New England" would be a better choice, though New York is increasingly becoming a wasteland for the GOP as well. They are highly unlikely to win back any of the NY House seats they lost in 2006 and are likely to finally lose the State Senate in 2008. (New York's State Senate has strange distribution rules based on counties that benefit rural areas and thus the GOP.)

[adam]

The momentum is in the northeast rests with the Democrats, and that won't be changing anytime soon. 2006 showed that the Northeast has given the big FU to Republicans. Pennsylvania is a longshot, and the GOP is dead elsewhere. People are delusional if they think the GOP candidate could carry New Hampshire in 08. The only reason Bush won it in 2000 was because of Nader.

[Mr.Phips]

Well they're not completely dead in PA and NJ.  There are still swaths of both states that are very conservative and NJ only has a 7-6 advantage for the Dems in the US House.  The GOP definitely has a shot in PA 4 and 10.

I think Altmire is a lot safer in PA-04 than people think.  Im almost certain that Hart was the only Republican ever to hold that seat.

[Deano963]

I just listed 5 Senate seats that they will almost undoubtedly lose when the current occupant either retires or is defeated. That's a big hurdle that will make it almost impossible for them to capture the Senate in the near future, given the fact that they are expected to lose more seats in the '08 and '10 elections and they are already in the minority.

Landrieu's, Lincoln's, Nelson's, and Pryor's seats are as likely or more likely to fall than Specter's is when they retire.

Landrieu and Nelson, sure; Lincoln and Pryor, likely not.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Deano963]

And you don't see the trend turning around because you're looking at this very narrowly. The 2004 elections saw Democrats losing Senate seats in GA, NC, LA, SC, and FL. So, really it's all going to balance out in the long run. If you're going to look at regional polarisation, look at it in a balanced way. The Democrat's gains in the Northeast are coming on the heels of a forty year shedding of votes in the South.

Except you're ignoring the fact that the Democrats have lost just about everything they can possibly lose in the South already (only Landrieu's seat is still in danger), and yet they are still in the majority.

Republicans, on the other hand, still hold 5 seats in the Northeast that will eventually go Dem. Therefore, you are the one who is not looking at in a balanced way.

[Verily]

And you don't see the trend turning around because you're looking at this very narrowly. The 2004 elections saw Democrats losing Senate seats in GA, NC, LA, SC, and FL. So, really it's all going to balance out in the long run. If you're going to look at regional polarisation, look at it in a balanced way. The Democrat's gains in the Northeast are coming on the heels of a forty year shedding of votes in the South.

Except you're ignoring the fact that the Democrats have lost just about everything they can possibly lose in the South already (only Landrieu's seat is still in danger), and yet they are still in the majority.

Republicans, on the other hand, still hold 5 seats in the Northeast that will eventually go Dem. Therefore, you are the one who is not looking at in a balanced way.

I would like to bring attention to this once more. The Republicans have only a scant few seats where they are likely to secure a victory when the Democratic incumbent retires. Nebraska and Louisiana are the only ones; the Democrats are reasonably strong at a state level in Montana, so they have about evens on holding on to the Senate seats there (especially given the ousting of a Republican incumbent recently), and they hold both House seats in the Dakotas, the obvious stepping stone to the Senate seat. They are also extremely strong at a state level in Arkansas and reasonably so in Indiana, especially with Mitch Daniels' unpopularity. That leaves 2 very vulnerable and 7 mildly vulnerable seats in open races.

The Republicans hold seats that are very vulnerable if open in New Hampshire (2), Maine (2), Pennsylvania (1), Colorado (1), Minnesota (1) and New Mexico (1). They also hold mildly vulnerable seats in North Carolina (2), Oregon (1) and Nevada (1). (North Carolina and New Mexico are due to great state-level Democratic strength.) That's 8 very vulnerable and another 5 mildly vulnerable seats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The GOP is basically dead in MA, RI, CT, NY, VT, MD, DC. They are on life support in ME, NH, NJ, DE, and PA.

[JSojourner]

Ever again?  Of course.

In the near future?  Probably not.

Answering questions like Rummy?  Yes.

Making myself a bit nauseous?  Not particularly.  This is kinda fun. 

Ol' Rummy was on to something!