Conrad to Retire

[Mr.Phips]

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?

Yeah, I forgot Ben Nelson. 

[Keystone Phil]

Too weird. About two hours ago, a political friend of mine was talking about Conrad's speech on the Senate floor right before Dorgan gave his farewell. That then led to a conversation about Conrad's interesting return to the Senate. We had no idea about the announcement since we were on the way back from Harrisburg. Funny enough, we were talking about a local official's announcement to run for another office right before that. Then I come home to find out about Liebeman and Conrad. A very interesting day.

Looks like this will, at the very least, cancel out a possible loss in Massachusetts.

[Torie]

I am cautiously optimistic that Brown may hold on in Mass, even if Obama is re-elected. I have this gut feeling Mass voters may be getting bored being represented by a wall of Dems, assuming there is a presentable Pubbie who is not too offensive to add a bit of variegation to the mix, particularly if it looks like the GOP will take control of the Senate, which appears to me to be a more likely than not scenario, unless Obama gets something close to his prior margin in 2012. Just my idle speculation, based on nothing much. I hope Brittain33 is not laughing at me too hard on this one.

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

I am cautiously optimistic that Brown may hold on in Mass, even if Obama is re-elected. I have this gut feeling Mass voters may be getting bored being represented by a wall of Dems, assuming there is a presentable Pubbie who is not too offensive to add a bit of variegation to the mix, particularly if it looks like the GOP will take control of the Senate, which appears to me to be a more likely than not scenario, unless Obama gets something close to his prior margin in 2012. Just my idle speculation, based on nothing much. I hope Brittain33 is not laughing at me too hard on this one.

I really doubt voters in Massachusetts (or anywhere for that matter) give that sort of thought to things. Massachusetts didn't seem to mind not electing a single member of the majority party from 1996 to 2006 as they did (excluding the brief period after Jeffords' defection.)

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I have this gut feeling Mass voters may be getting bored being represented by a wall of Dems,

..which is why the Republicans did so well there in 2010.

[krazen1211]

I am cautiously optimistic that Brown may hold on in Mass, even if Obama is re-elected. I have this gut feeling Mass voters may be getting bored being represented by a wall of Dems, assuming there is a presentable Pubbie who is not too offensive to add a bit of variegation to the mix, particularly if it looks like the GOP will take control of the Senate, which appears to me to be a more likely than not scenario, unless Obama gets something close to his prior margin in 2012. Just my idle speculation, based on nothing much. I hope Brittain33 is not laughing at me too hard on this one.

I really doubt voters in Massachusetts (or anywhere for that matter) give that sort of thought to things. Massachusetts didn't seem to mind not electing a single member of the majority party from 1996 to 2006 as they did (excluding the brief period after Jeffords' defection.)

The last 2 years have shown that having a Senator on the filibuster cusp (ie Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown) lets you demand what you want in legislation.

I'm sure Massachusetts power players recognize that fact.

[phk]

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.

2000 was evening out the GOP wave of 1994.

2012 could similarly be the year where the D wave of 2006 is evened out.

[minionofmidas]

I am cautiously optimistic that Brown may hold on in Mass, even if Obama is re-elected. I have this gut feeling Mass voters may be getting bored being represented by a wall of Dems, assuming there is a presentable Pubbie who is not too offensive to add a bit of variegation to the mix, particularly if it looks like the GOP will take control of the Senate, which appears to me to be a more likely than not scenario, unless Obama gets something close to his prior margin in 2012. Just my idle speculation, based on nothing much. I hope Brittain33 is not laughing at me too hard on this one.

That ought to reduce Brown's chances, not increase them.

[Lief 🗽]

Kent Conrad was an awful senator, but he'll be replaced with a nutjob unfortunately.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Kent Conrad was an awful senator, but he'll be replaced with a nutjob unfortunately.

It may be a close race - doubtful, but you're right, a teabagger will probably get the seat.

As for him being an awful senator, I didn't care for him much either, but he was a moderate representing a conservative state. But yeah, good riddance, Kent.

[SvenssonRS]

Kent Conrad was an awful senator, but he'll be replaced with a nutjob unfortunately.

It may be a close race - doubtful, but you're right, a teabagger will probably get the seat.

I label that as being extremely unlikely. Most of the mentioned candidates so far are out of Hoeven's administration, and apparently, he was reasonable even to Democrats. As well, the ND Republican party doesn't seem to be very "deep end," if you ask me.

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

I am cautiously optimistic that Brown may hold on in Mass, even if Obama is re-elected. I have this gut feeling Mass voters may be getting bored being represented by a wall of Dems, assuming there is a presentable Pubbie who is not too offensive to add a bit of variegation to the mix, particularly if it looks like the GOP will take control of the Senate, which appears to me to be a more likely than not scenario, unless Obama gets something close to his prior margin in 2012. Just my idle speculation, based on nothing much. I hope Brittain33 is not laughing at me too hard on this one.

I really doubt voters in Massachusetts (or anywhere for that matter) give that sort of thought to things. Massachusetts didn't seem to mind not electing a single member of the majority party from 1996 to 2006 as they did (excluding the brief period after Jeffords' defection.)

The last 2 years have shown that having a Senator on the filibuster cusp (ie Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown) lets you demand what you want in legislation.

I'm sure Massachusetts power players recognize that fact.

The "Cornhusker Kickback" deal Ben Nelson got made no one happy. But once again that's not the way voters think. As Lewis noted the Republicans being able to take the Senate would only reduce Brown's chances. As noted before no one in Massachusetts didn't seem to care about the state not having any members of the majority party in the House for a full decade and none in the Senate either for the same time except for the brief period after Jeffords' flip.

[krazen1211]

I am cautiously optimistic that Brown may hold on in Mass, even if Obama is re-elected. I have this gut feeling Mass voters may be getting bored being represented by a wall of Dems, assuming there is a presentable Pubbie who is not too offensive to add a bit of variegation to the mix, particularly if it looks like the GOP will take control of the Senate, which appears to me to be a more likely than not scenario, unless Obama gets something close to his prior margin in 2012. Just my idle speculation, based on nothing much. I hope Brittain33 is not laughing at me too hard on this one.

I really doubt voters in Massachusetts (or anywhere for that matter) give that sort of thought to things. Massachusetts didn't seem to mind not electing a single member of the majority party from 1996 to 2006 as they did (excluding the brief period after Jeffords' defection.)

The last 2 years have shown that having a Senator on the filibuster cusp (ie Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown) lets you demand what you want in legislation.

I'm sure Massachusetts power players recognize that fact.

The "Cornhusker Kickback" deal Ben Nelson got made no one happy. But once again that's not the way voters think. As Lewis noted the Republicans being able to take the Senate would only reduce Brown's chances. As noted before no one in Massachusetts didn't seem to care about the state not having any members of the majority party in the House for a full decade and none in the Senate either for the same time except for the brief period after Jeffords' flip.

I agree, its not the way voters thing. But it is the way financial donors, local mayors, gotv guys, and special interests think.

Why else would Menino come out swinging for Brown?

[Badger]

Drats. Certainly the GOP won't have anyone as strong as Hoeven, and the anti-Democratic climate won't be as bad as 2010, but the seat is lost.

Excellent points, which is why I think its a tad early to write this seat off almost 2 years beforehand. It doesn't look great--Conrad is retiring for a reason--but Obama only lost this state by about 8.5%. If one assumes 2012, if not 2010 levels will still undoubtedly see Obama's reelection going down in flames, well, then [/conversation].

However, given Obama's optimistic, though admittedly very preliminary, numbers against every likely GOP candidate, its not unreasonable to say Obama could do at least as well in ND as in 08, and best case scenario (OK, after winning the state because he's facing Palin) could even imporve a point or three.  The GOP nominee for this seat--which, again, fortunately will not be John Hoeven-- may not be able to rely on very long coattails to win.

[Nichlemn]

lol @ Cook rating this a toss-up. It's like how he kept Lincoln as "Toss-up" up until shortly before the election even when she was trailing by 20 points. But there isn't even an "incumbent rule" here. How is this consistent with ranking Texas "Likely R" when Texas in fact has a lower CPVI? Sure, other factors matter in open seat races, but it's not as if some other factor is massively influential. (Maybe a possible Dorgan run? It doesn't seem like Cook hedges for candidacies much though, considering he ranked DE-Sen "Safe D" before Mike Castle ran).

[Brittain33]

They have to rate the race a toss-up until they have an idea who is actually running. No one has announced yet beyond a low-level state official. More will step up to the plate.

[Nichlemn]

They have to rate the race a toss-up until they have an idea who is actually running. No one has announced yet beyond a low-level state official. More will step up to the plate.

I really don't think Cook uses this standard. For instance, DE-Sen was "Solid Dem" in early 2009 when it was open and no-one had announced. Besides, it seems like a stupid standard anyway. By that logic, NY-16 would be a toss-up if Serrano retired and no other Democrat had yet announced, because "we have no idea who is actually running". Surely it makes sense to take into account partisan leanings and the fact that with a deep bench strong candidates will inevitably arise.

I frankly think Cook isn't ranking this higher because of an irrational aversion to big shifts in ratings/big shifts against the incumbent party. That is, I strongly suspect that if a "Safe R" Republican was retiring instead, he would probably rank the race "Lean R" or "Likely R".

[Brittain33]

They have to rate the race a toss-up until they have an idea who is actually running. No one has announced yet beyond a low-level state official. More will step up to the plate.

I really don't think Cook uses this standard. For instance, DE-Sen was "Solid Dem" in early 2009 when it was open and no-one had announced. Besides, it seems like a stupid standard anyway. By that logic, NY-16 would be a toss-up if Serrano retired and no other Democrat had yet announced, because "we have no idea who is actually running". Surely it makes sense to take into account partisan leanings and the fact that with a deep bench strong candidates will inevitably arise.

I frankly think Cook isn't ranking this higher because of an irrational aversion to big shifts in ratings/big shifts against the incumbent party. That is, I strongly suspect that if a "Safe R" Republican was retiring instead, he would probably rank the race "Lean R" or "Likely R".

Ok.

[Joe Biden 2020]

NOOOOOO!!!!!  He was a really good Senator and it'll be hard to see him give a farewell speech in December 2012.  As others have said, that makes the chances of the Democrats retaining the Senate for the 113th Congress pretty slim.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Bumping for Comedic Effect

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Haha.  Good find.

[_]

Lol

[MT Treasurer]

Haha.  Good find.

I agree. It is really astonishing how underrated Heitkamp is on this forum. I feel like we're going to see a redux of this in 2018 as well.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Haha.  Good find.

I agree. It is really astonishing how underrated Heitkamp is on this forum. I feel like we're going to see a redux of this in 2018 as well.

I honestly think it's pretty remarkable that most of Atlas seems to agree that she has at least a 40% chance of victory. (My own view is that she has a 50% chance of victory) It would be so Atlas to go all: "Clinton got only 27% of the vote, Heitkamp loses by 25%!!!!"

[Coraxion]

It would be so Atlas to go all: "Clinton got only 27% of the vote, Heitkamp loses by 25%!!!!"

It would also be so you. *cough* McCaskill *cough*