Saxby Chambliss

[Jacobtm]

Does Senator Chambliss have any potential challengers for 2008? He seems pretty conservative and religious in a state that is the same, but he didn't beat Cleland by that much, and he did so in a time much more favorable to Republicans. Might Cleland run for his old seat?

[Democratic Hawk]

No, I don't think Cleland is interested in running for his old seat. The Republicans would only character assassinate him as they did in 2002

Rep. Jim Marshall has been touted as a possible challenger to Chambliss but while he'd be the most competitive of Georgia Democrats, there's no guarantee he would win. And for Marshall to run, win or lose, would most likely mean Republicans picking up his marginal House district

I'm not sure how popular an incumbent Chambliss is now but back in November, he had a net approval rating of +16% (52% Approve / 36% Disapprove). With those numbers, I see Chambliss being re-elected in 2008

There seems to be an acute lack of viable statewide candidates Democrats can muster in Georgia nowadays

Dave

[WalterMitty]

what about roy barnes?

[Adlai Stevenson]

There are still some popular statewide Democrats, including former Secretary of State Kathy Cox and Attorney General Thurbert Baker - yet Georgia has also grown aggressively Republican - the Party had a good year there even in 2006, and I think Chambliss is likely to be safe. 

[adam]

This isn't a race that I would focus money on, Chambliss is quite safe.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Chambliss won by about 7% in 2002, which is pretty damned good considering he wasn't leading in a single damn poll.  Roy Barnes lost by an even bigger margin in an even lower profile race.

Significant statewide losses are not good springboards for future runs.

There was hardly any competition for an open Senate seat in 2004, and Georgia actually got more Republican in 2006 while the rest of the country moved to the left.  Trying to beat Chambliss is an exercise in futility, especially in a Presidential year.

[Mr.Phips]

Chambliss won by about 7% in 2002, which is pretty damned good considering he wasn't leading in a single damn poll.  Roy Barnes lost by an even bigger margin in an even lower profile race.

Significant statewide losses are not good springboards for future runs.

There was hardly any competition for an open Senate seat in 2004, and Georgia actually got more Republican in 2006 while the rest of the country moved to the left.  Trying to beat Chambliss is an exercise in futility, especially in a Presidential year.

Chambliss led 49-48 in the final Zogby poll.

[adam]

Chambliss won by about 7% in 2002, which is pretty damned good considering he wasn't leading in a single damn poll.  Roy Barnes lost by an even bigger margin in an even lower profile race.

Significant statewide losses are not good springboards for future runs.

There was hardly any competition for an open Senate seat in 2004, and Georgia actually got more Republican in 2006 while the rest of the country moved to the left.  Trying to beat Chambliss is an exercise in futility, especially in a Presidential year.

Chambliss led 49-48 in the final Zogby poll.

Enough said.

[HardRCafé]

No, I don't think Cleland is interested in running for his old seat. The Republicans would only character assassinate him as they did in 2002

You are unclear on the concept.  Character assassination is, by definition, untrue.

And Barnes lost by 1% less than Cleland, but to an unknown.  Stick a big old fork in him.