Barbara Mikulski

[Jaggerjack]

If Michael Steele runs again and 2010 is an open seat race in a Republican year, I would be worried.  Steele ran better than any Republican Senatorial candidate had in about 30 years in Maryland. 

The only reason he lost was due to 2006 being a very bad year for the Republicans,Also in 2010 Iraq maybe resolved by then,Which takes the burden off the Republicans and with the high chance of a Democratic President this all means that 2010 could be a good year for Republicans.

ZOMG! IT WAS BAD REPUBLICAN YEAR SO REPUBLICAN COULDN'T WIN IN SOLID BLUE STATE!



Haven't you forgotten Ford from Tennessee?

Ford came close because it was a bad Republican year and everyone was angry at Bush and Iraq,Along with GOP corruption combind with the fact that TN's Democratic Governor was very well liked and won every county in the state in his reelection bid.   

If Ford couldn't win in Tennessee, Steele bloody well wouldn't win in Maryland in a bad Democratic year.

[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.

[Kevin]

If Michael Steele runs again and 2010 is an open seat race in a Republican year, I would be worried.  Steele ran better than any Republican Senatorial candidate had in about 30 years in Maryland. 

The only reason he lost was due to 2006 being a very bad year for the Republicans,Also in 2010 Iraq maybe resolved by then,Which takes the burden off the Republicans and with the high chance of a Democratic President this all means that 2010 could be a good year for Republicans.

ZOMG! IT WAS BAD REPUBLICAN YEAR SO REPUBLICAN COULDN'T WIN IN SOLID BLUE STATE!



Haven't you forgotten Ford from Tennessee?

Ford came close because it was a bad Republican year and everyone was angry at Bush and Iraq,Along with GOP corruption combind with the fact that TN's Democratic Governor was very well liked and won every county in the state in his reelection bid.   

If Ford couldn't win in Tennessee, Steele bloody well wouldn't win in Maryland in a bad Democratic year.

Ford didn't have his act together that is one of the reasons he didn't win. Also with Maryland it was a blue state in a blue year.   

[Jaggerjack]

If Michael Steele runs again and 2010 is an open seat race in a Republican year, I would be worried.  Steele ran better than any Republican Senatorial candidate had in about 30 years in Maryland. 

The only reason he lost was due to 2006 being a very bad year for the Republicans,Also in 2010 Iraq maybe resolved by then,Which takes the burden off the Republicans and with the high chance of a Democratic President this all means that 2010 could be a good year for Republicans.

ZOMG! IT WAS BAD REPUBLICAN YEAR SO REPUBLICAN COULDN'T WIN IN SOLID BLUE STATE!



Haven't you forgotten Ford from Tennessee?

Ford came close because it was a bad Republican year and everyone was angry at Bush and Iraq,Along with GOP corruption combind with the fact that TN's Democratic Governor was very well liked and won every county in the state in his reelection bid.   

If Ford couldn't win in Tennessee, Steele bloody well wouldn't win in Maryland in a bad Democratic year.

Ford didn't have his act together that is one of the reasons he didn't win. Also with Maryland it was a blue state in a blue year.   

Ford was a powerful candidate in 2006. He still couldn't win. Steele didn't have much to run on, besides his race. Read BRTD's post then reply.

It's okay to be optimistic, but saying that Steele will win in one of the most Democratic states in a bad Democratic year is simply laughable.

[Kevin]

If Michael Steele runs again and 2010 is an open seat race in a Republican year, I would be worried.  Steele ran better than any Republican Senatorial candidate had in about 30 years in Maryland. 

The only reason he lost was due to 2006 being a very bad year for the Republicans,Also in 2010 Iraq maybe resolved by then,Which takes the burden off the Republicans and with the high chance of a Democratic President this all means that 2010 could be a good year for Republicans.

ZOMG! IT WAS BAD REPUBLICAN YEAR SO REPUBLICAN COULDN'T WIN IN SOLID BLUE STATE!



Haven't you forgotten Ford from Tennessee?

Ford came close because it was a bad Republican year and everyone was angry at Bush and Iraq,Along with GOP corruption combind with the fact that TN's Democratic Governor was very well liked and won every county in the state in his reelection bid.   

If Ford couldn't win in Tennessee, Steele bloody well wouldn't win in Maryland in a bad Democratic year.

Ford didn't have his act together that is one of the reasons he didn't win. Also with Maryland it was a blue state in a blue year.   

Ford was a powerful candidate in 2006. He still couldn't win. Steele didn't have much to run on, besides his race. Read BRTD's post then reply.

It's okay to be optimistic, but saying that Steele will win in one of the most Democratic states in a bad Democratic year is simply laughable.

Ford could have won though had it not been for his screwups,Also never underestimate the anger people can direct at a party that is in power,Just because Maryland is very blue state doesn't mean it can''t send a Republican to the Senate. Look at Maine a state that is trending hard left it has two Republican Senators or look at Rhode Island it sent John Chafee and then his son to Washington. So I find it foolish to say it is laughable to say that a Republican can't won a Senate seat from a blue state. If it is foolish then why did a red state like Montana oust Conrad Burns in favor of John Tester and not to mention they have Max Baucus another Democrat. Look at North Dakota they have two fairly liberal Democrats from a state that went heavily Bush.       

[Jaggerjack]

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.

[Kevin]

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'?

[Jaggerjack]

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?

[Kevin]

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.   

[Jaggerjack]

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.   

That was the only reason that Maryland 2006 was even REMOTELY competitive. But it's over, Steele's political life is pretty much finished, and Maryland has a strong Democratic tradition.

[Kevin]

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.

Overall it is foolish to say that any state no matter how Republican or Democratic leaning won't send a Senator from the opposite party to Washington. I could easily see a Democratic Senator from Utah or Republican from New York if they had appeal in their state.     

[Jaggerjack]

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.

Overall it is foolish to say that any state no matter how Republican or Democratic leaning won't send a Senator from the opposite party to Washington. I could easily see a Democratic Senator from Utah or Republican from New York if they had appeal in their state.     

That is true; however, Steele has no chance in hell of winning now. The end.

[Kevin]

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.   

That was the only reason that Maryland 2006 was even REMOTELY competitive. But it's over, Steele's political life is pretty much finished, and Maryland has a strong Democratic tradition.

But saying his name is in the sh**ter is not really accurate,A good example of a name in the sh**ter would be George Allen.    

[Jaggerjack]

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.   

That was the only reason that Maryland 2006 was even REMOTELY competitive. But it's over, Steele's political life is pretty much finished, and Maryland has a strong Democratic tradition.

But saying his name is in the sh**ter is not really accurate,A good example of a name in the sh**ter would be George Allen.    

One thing that Steele and Allen have in common: Their political futures are done for.

[Kevin]

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.

Overall it is foolish to say that any state no matter how Republican or Democratic leaning won't send a Senator from the opposite party to Washington. I could easily see a Democratic Senator from Utah or Republican from New York if they had appeal in their state.     

That is true; however, Steele has no chance in hell of winning now. The end.

However even though Maryland leans Democratic in the worst of years I wouldn't doubt it sending a Republican to Washington.  

[Kevin]

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.   

That was the only reason that Maryland 2006 was even REMOTELY competitive. But it's over, Steele's political life is pretty much finished, and Maryland has a strong Democratic tradition.

But saying his name is in the sh**ter is not really accurate,A good example of a name in the sh**ter would be George Allen.    

One thing that Steele and Allen have in common: Their political futures are done for.

Steele's has just begun while Allen's is done for good.

[Jaggerjack]

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.

Overall it is foolish to say that any state no matter how Republican or Democratic leaning won't send a Senator from the opposite party to Washington. I could easily see a Democratic Senator from Utah or Republican from New York if they had appeal in their state.     

That is true; however, Steele has no chance in hell of winning now. The end.

However even though Maryland leans Democratic in the worst of years I wouldn't doubt it sending a Republican to Washington.  

That could happen someday. But Steele will not be that Republican. And it won't be in the near future.

The only real way for that to happen is nominating a popular, liberal Republican (as Maryland is a liberal state). There are none at the moment.

[Kevin]

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.   

That was the only reason that Maryland 2006 was even REMOTELY competitive. But it's over, Steele's political life is pretty much finished, and Maryland has a strong Democratic tradition.

But saying his name is in the sh**ter is not really accurate,A good example of a name in the sh**ter would be George Allen.    

One thing that Steele and Allen have in common: Their political futures are done for.

Steele's has just begun while Allen's is done for good.

Of course a liberal Republican who is well liked would have the best chance but never say never with anyone else.

[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.

[Adlai Stevenson]

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. 

[Jaggerjack]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[Jaggerjack]

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.

And no Republican has any shot in hell of winning blacks, even if he is black himself.

[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.

[Verily]

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.

"Vote for Michael Steele, he's black."

He's become a statewide joke over the overt racial tone his campaign took.