Conrad to Retire
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:31:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Conrad to Retire
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Conrad to Retire  (Read 15088 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2011, 01:20:29 PM »

Assuming Obama is going to win reelection... Was there any instance in U.S. history when one party won a presidential election and lost a control over the Senate at one time?

2000 comes very close, although the unfortunate circumstances of that election are why we ended up with that scenario. The Democrats picking up 5 seats in the Senate to bring it to a tie were consistent with Bush getting the narrowest win (legally) possible and losing the popular vote.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2011, 01:22:56 PM »
« Edited: January 18, 2011, 01:24:45 PM by krazen1211 »

If Obama wins reelection, we're going to see exactly how broken our judicial nomination system really is.
We've already seen it the last 2 years.

Because Obama got both his Supreme Court nominees confirmed, with Republican votes?

He got fewer lower court appointees approved with a Democratic Senate than Bush did in his first two years in a Senate that flipped from GOP to Democratic. He got fewer nominees appointed in two years than any president since Nixon. Now, imagine if Republicans faced pressures from their base to not allow any presidential nominee to get a vote other than the most moderate or some tokens. It's going to be ugly.

It already was ugly.

Bush got a lot of nominees in his first 2 years.

He got very few nominees in his last 2 years.

In fact, its funny you mention the bolded. Chuck Schumer declared a pre-emptive strike on Bush nominees in 2007.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”


“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington.




He incidentally didn't actually reverse the presumption of confirmation. Shrug.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2011, 01:31:03 PM »

Kent Conrad was among my favorite Senators. He will be missed.

I don't think Democrats will win this seat in this election. Maybe later, guys. Sad
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2011, 01:35:28 PM »

Here are the full numbers for the last 2 Presidencies as far as judicial nominees.


http://www.citizenlink.com/2008/10/judicial-confirmation-statistics-clinton-v-bush/

District court confirmed    Circuit Court confirmed    Senate controlled by
103rd Cong (93-94)    108    19    Dem
104th Cong (95-96)    62    11    Rep
105th Cong (97-98)    80    20    Rep
106th Cong (99-00)    57    15    Rep
Totals    307    65

107th Cong (01-02)    83    17    Dem
108th Cong (03-04)    85    18    Rep
109th Cong (05-06)    35    16    Rep
110th Cong (07-08)*    58    10    Dem
Totals*    261    61
Logged
SvenssonRS
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.39, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2011, 02:16:03 PM »

...huh. Well, I'm not complaining that he's going, but I was under the impression that he actually had a pretty strong chance toward reelection, unlike poor Byron Dorgan, who was seemingly destined to go up against Hoeven either way.

Oh, well. Point still is, comparing the benches in ND, this seat is history.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2011, 02:26:05 PM »

Here are the full numbers for the last 2 Presidencies as far as judicial nominees.


http://www.citizenlink.com/2008/10/judicial-confirmation-statistics-clinton-v-bush/

District court confirmed    Circuit Court confirmed    Senate controlled by
103rd Cong (93-94)    108    19    Dem
104th Cong (95-96)    62    11    Rep
105th Cong (97-98)    80    20    Rep
106th Cong (99-00)    57    15    Rep
Totals    307    65

107th Cong (01-02)    83    17    Dem
108th Cong (03-04)    85    18    Rep
109th Cong (05-06)    35    16    Rep
110th Cong (07-08)*    58    10    Dem
Totals*    261    61
Okay, the 109th Congress figure is intriguing.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2011, 02:32:07 PM »
« Edited: January 18, 2011, 02:46:07 PM by Torie »

Hopefully Ginsburg sees the writing on the wall and retires sometime before the next election.

If Ginsburg retires too close to the election, the GOP will filibuster, just like happened late in LBJ's term, when he nominated Abe Fortas (who then dropped out after ethics issues popped up).  So if Ginsburg is thinking about retiring, she had better make up her mind.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2011, 02:51:19 PM »
« Edited: January 18, 2011, 02:56:26 PM by krazen1211 »

Here are the full numbers for the last 2 Presidencies as far as judicial nominees.


http://www.citizenlink.com/2008/10/judicial-confirmation-statistics-clinton-v-bush/

District court confirmed    Circuit Court confirmed    Senate controlled by
103rd Cong (93-94)    108    19    Dem
104th Cong (95-96)    62    11    Rep
105th Cong (97-98)    80    20    Rep
106th Cong (99-00)    57    15    Rep
Totals    307    65

107th Cong (01-02)    83    17    Dem
108th Cong (03-04)    85    18    Rep
109th Cong (05-06)    35    16    Rep
110th Cong (07-08)*    58    10    Dem
Totals*    261    61
Okay, the 109th Congress figure is intriguing.


Yeah, it sort of is.

http://www.abanet.org/poladv/priorities/judicial_vacancies/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies


Basically 4 months of so were lost to filibustering, Alito/Roberts/Miers chewed up another 6 months, and Specter refusing to move nominees during the lame duck session lost another 2 months. Really just incompetence on part of Bill Frist and company.

Democrats in the 110th, of course, had no reason to play 'catchup' when they thought they would take the Presidency.



Anyway, I bring this up because a lot of people talk about the 107th session, which was obviously fairly productive. The more recent sessions, though, weren't so for whatever reason, and they're probably fresher in people's minds. So there's likely some lingering bitterness.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2011, 02:54:22 PM »

Hopefully Ginsburg sees the writing on the wall and retires sometime before the next election.

If Ginsburg retires too close to the election, the GOP will filibuster, just like happened late in LBJ's term, when he nominated Abe Fortas (who then dropped out after ethics issues popped up).  So if Ginsburg is thinking about retiring, she had better make up her mind.

Yeah, I think that's why nobody has retired in an election year since then. Of course, Chuck Schumer based on his own partisan hack statements might have moved that clock up to July 2011.

Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2011, 02:57:23 PM »

Even if the GOP takes the Senate (far from being guaranteed), there isn't much they can do about another Obama court pick. It's not like they are going to get anyone favorable to their ideology, at best it will be a non-controversial pick.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2011, 03:10:18 PM »

Democrats might as well kiss the Senate goodbye at this point.

I dont see that at all.  Every other Democrat is in a state Obama will carry with the exception of McCaskill(barely) and Tester. 
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2011, 03:32:29 PM »

Democrats might as well kiss the Senate goodbye at this point.

I dont see that at all.  Every other Democrat is in a state Obama will carry with the exception of McCaskill(barely) and Tester. 

Do you think Obama will get 53.5% of the vote again?
Logged
SvenssonRS
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.39, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 18, 2011, 03:33:06 PM »

Democrats might as well kiss the Senate goodbye at this point.

I dont see that at all.  Every other Democrat is in a state Obama will carry with the exception of McCaskill(barely) and Tester. 

And Webb. And Casey. And Stabenow. And Nelson. And the other Nelson. And Manchin. And Kohl.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 18, 2011, 03:34:33 PM »

A lot will have to go wrong for Republicans to not win the Senate in 2012. As it stands, we're looking at 49 seats, and the chances of us finding two more pickups out there are pretty good. 1 if we take the White House.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2011, 03:56:08 PM »

Democrats might as well kiss the Senate goodbye at this point.

I dont see that at all.  Every other Democrat is in a state Obama will carry with the exception of McCaskill(barely) and Tester. 

Do you think Obama will get 53.5% of the vote again?

Are you sure he won't?
I guess if you said in January 1983 that Reagan would hit 60% next year, then you would be escorted by a couple of friendly men in white to a large mansion with high bars.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2011, 04:12:08 PM »

Don't mean to brag but, CALLED IT!!!! Tongue


Sorry, couldn't resist. He was part of the friend's of Angelou thingy with Dodd and after what happened to Pomeroy in 2010, someone who wasn't connected to a financial scandal related to the collapse, he probably decided not to bother with reelection.


One more thing. Either there was a poll somewhere that he saw that had him losing, or the buzz among Dem strategists in DC is that they don't plan to go after North Dakota at all for Obama, or both.


Might bet is Wayne Stenejhem will be the Hoeven (minus about 20 points but thats still more then enough Wink ) and we will see an annoucement from him soon.



A lot will have to go wrong for Republicans to not win the Senate in 2012. As it stands, we're looking at 49 seats, and the chances of us finding two more pickups out there are pretty good. 1 if we take the White House.

The good thing is we have plenty of options to go after. Also Nevada looks much better with Heller now putting Ensign out to pasture in primary polling. Still a long way off though.


Oh, and I trust that is really Lunar and not Vander having reached whole new levels of impersonation? Tongue
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2011, 04:22:00 PM »

If you said in January 1983 that Reagan would hit 60% next year, then you would be escorted by a couple of friendly men in white to a large mansion with high bars.

Just because something unlikely happened once doesn't mean it'll happen twice.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 18, 2011, 04:24:06 PM »

If you said in January 1983 that Reagan would hit 60% next year, then you would be escorted by a couple of friendly men in white to a large mansion with high bars.

Just because something unlikely happened once doesn't mean it'll happen twice.

1996?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 18, 2011, 04:26:03 PM »

Ray Gun didn't hit 60% in 1984.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 18, 2011, 04:26:56 PM »

If you said in January 1983 that Reagan would hit 60% next year, then you would be escorted by a couple of friendly men in white to a large mansion with high bars.

Just because something unlikely happened once doesn't mean it'll happen twice.

No, but if you look at the polling available for Obama vs. all the Republicans running and the abysmal poll ratings of Republicans in Congress, you can see how a pattern is taking shape, which doesn't likely lead to Obama winning 49 states but does make reelection more likely than not.

What is "unlikely" by historical standards is a president being denied reelection in a growing economy...
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2011, 04:30:17 PM »

Yay. I assume this will be a Republican pick-up.

It seems like the Dakotas are returning to their political home.

For the first time since the 1950's really as far as North Dakota is concerned. They have had atleast one Dem Senator since 1960 when Burdick first got elected.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 18, 2011, 04:46:31 PM »

Democrats might as well kiss the Senate goodbye at this point.

I dont see that at all.  Every other Democrat is in a state Obama will carry with the exception of McCaskill(barely) and Tester. 

And Webb. And Casey. And Stabenow. And Nelson. And the other Nelson. And Manchin. And Kohl.

Manchin is the only Democrat not in an Obama state and if he could survive 2010, he can survive anything. 
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2011, 04:52:24 PM »

Might Dorgan run since Hoeven won't be on the ballot?
Logged
SvenssonRS
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.39, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2011, 05:00:23 PM »

Democrats might as well kiss the Senate goodbye at this point.

I dont see that at all.  Every other Democrat is in a state Obama will carry with the exception of McCaskill(barely) and Tester. 

And Webb. And Casey. And Stabenow. And Nelson. And the other Nelson. And Manchin. And Kohl.

Manchin is the only Democrat not in an Obama state and if he could survive 2010, he can survive anything. 

need I point out BEN NELSON?
Logged
Mjh
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 255


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: January 18, 2011, 05:01:01 PM »

Yay. I assume this will be a Republican pick-up.

It seems like the Dakotas are returning to their political home.

For the first time since the 1950's really as far as North Dakota is concerned. They have had atleast one Dem Senator since 1960 when Burdick first got elected.

Isn't that strange, given how conservative the state is?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 11 queries.