« The Next Open Thread: Evangelical Edition | Main | The Lay Of The Land: The Aggregate Polls, And The Voter Who Shows »

November 05, 2006


One of the other Hurrahs said that the House has never flipped without the Senate going as well. Ther is a first for everything, but despite this seeming bad news, I still think the dems will get 6-7 seats, and enough to take the Senate if Lieberman doesn't defect.

Can Tennessee really be that different from the rest of the US? If so, I guess it is proof that the GOP will be a regional party. Even VA is going to have a Dem Senator and maybe a new House member, I think.

I am watching CT-02 with great interest, in addition to CT-04 and CT-05. As another observer noted, when the GOP has to ship in GOTV from out of state, it's no better than what the Ds have and maybe worse.

The CT papers (and the hometown in Fairfield County NY Times) have heavily endorsed the D's. Even Lamont gets today's danbury news times.

In President Bush's weekly radio address yesterday, the message he chose to broadcast to the nation on the weekend before the election that will determine the course of the remainder of his presidency, there is one word that it is hard not to notice he did not say.


I think the difference in TN is all race. That "call me" ad worked as well as McCain's black baby did in SC in 2000. If Ford were white, we may well have won that. Which does not speak well of the US of A.

MI is very weird. There are four races folks are watching:

07: Walberg v. Renier (nut v. nut). It was within single digits a few weeks ago, but Renier has never been that closely tied (or cooperative) with the local party, whereas Walberg has won before.

08: Rogers v. Marcinkowski (FBI v. CIA). I'm not terribly optimistic about this, though the big guns have given this race some attention of late. One reason for optimisim is that Rogers hasn't released his polling data, which means it can't be all that good.

09: Knollenberg v. Skinner (Dick v. Dame). Skinner also got some bigwig attention recently, but she's not got a lot of cash. It's a winnable district, though.

11: McCotter v. Trupiano. Trupiano's gotten a late infusion from the Blue America folks, though I don't know if it'll be enough to raise Trupiano's profile.

I don't see any of them happening without a big tide (and Gov and Sen are still close enough to ensure turnout among Republcians is good). But the thing is, I couldn't tell you WHICH of them would be most likely to happen. I expect them all to be closer than any of these districts have been in a while. But probably all fall short.

I mistakenly had Northrup's district as KY-04, when it is KY-03. And I forgot a possible pickup in NV-03. Long-shot, probably.

Here in the Bay Area there is an unbelievable amount of GOTV for McNerney, and rtumor has it the GOP is shipping in out-of-state volunteers for Pombo. As you say, Marcy, that can;t be as good as locals, even if they are form 50 miles away. I think the MoveOn call-in thing is a great tool. A friend is hosting an election day calling party for those who couldn;t participate on the ground in the effort in CA-11. Nothing like that has happened in my memory.

Of course, the rest of CA probably won't vote, and the lack of enthusiasm for Angelides and the Retreads is likely to hurt the statewide races. Debra Bowen had better win, though. She is one of the bright lights of a sclerotic Dem Party mostly dominated by a bunch of has-beens who just can't give up the perks of elected office.

I was just thinking, after posting my comment on your DKos thread, that CA may end up being OH in 2008. That is, we'll have Doolittle, Bilbray, Lewis, and (possibly) Hunter in a heap of trouble by then, and Pombo if McNerney doesn't take care of him now. Those Reps have ensured the GOP had SOMETHING to offer. But if they lose that pork, then the GOP will have a lot less to offer.

Now if only the Dems can get their heads out of their collective arse.

The Dems' problems in CA are very, very deep and structural. I think redistricting by a Commission who creates as many competitive seats as possible both CDs and the state legislature is our only hope. That, and preventing anyone from holding more than 2 statewide offices in their lifetime. It is just appalling that with all the brains in CA we get the politicians we get--kind of like NYC used to be.

And yes, I think in 2008 we could see some loses for the SoCal R's if the Dems take the House and control the Appropriations and Armed Services Committees.

Great clip at Taegan Goddard's on the death of the Reagan Coalition, or rather, the coming home of the Reagan Democrats.

Short version: "It took 30 years to assemble the Reagan Coalition but GW Bush dismantled it in 2 years."

Mimikatz, what is your call on CA-Lt.Gov.?

Schwarzenegger is obviously going to win, but his popularity is personal, not political. I seriously doubt that the Dems who are going to vote for him would vote for any R for statewide office. Same with the independents, given the times. The problem is whether enough Dems get out and vote, since the two top-of-the-ticket races (Gov and Sen) are a foregone conclusion. Garamendi is an ok Dem (not stupid or venal) and McClintock is very, very conservative. So this is a classic where Dems will vote Dem. Garamendi by 5 pts?

The other Dem I can really see losing in CA is Cruz Bustamente for Insurance Commissioner. His opponent (businessman) stressed Bustamante's notorious fundraising appetites and had a devastating ad with the tagline "If you Cruz, you lose."

I was just thinking, after posting my comment on your DKos thread, that CA may end up being OH in 2008

In 2008, all of America is gonna be the "Ohio" of 2006

the repuglican party is facing a choice soon

The repuglicans can either cooperate with the Democratic Majorities to toss george and dick out of office, or the repuglican party can die on the vine

21 repuglican senators are up for election in 2008, and Iraq ain't gonna get any better

If george decides to bomb Iran in retaliation for repuglican losses, then george will not survive in office for 6 months

America recognizes a LOSER when we see one, and george bush is definitly a LOSER

we ain't gonna let the repuglican party provide cover for george bush when the "cover" is DEAD SOLDIERS

the repuglican party can choose between george bush and America. either way, they lose

Mimi, people said NYstate D party was in big trouble 5 years ago. Nothing wrong with CA Dems that Villaraigosa, Nunez, or a married Gavin Newsom wouldn't cure.

The Dems will win a majority in the House. Why? Incumbent Repubs are competing in so many races that are within the margin of error in the recent polls that probability would mean that they are going to lose some and the Dems only need to flip 15 races. IN, OH, KY and upstate NY will provide the clue if there is a wave or just a marginal shift.

The question is how will the political landscape shift with a speaker Pelosi. Cheney has already laid out the gauntlet with his I don't care about the election results and what the public think we will continue full steam ahead. He has dared Pelosi and the Dem majority House. Bush will continue to do what he wants and is not afraid to manufacture constitutional crises. Their attack machinery including the media punditocracy will frame the Dem majority House as weakening America, appeasing the terrorists, obstructionist and tax and spenders. What will Pelosi and the Dems do? Do they have the courage? Are they up to this challenge?

I am really worried that the "centrist triangulator" Dems will continue to do what they have always done - make poor political judgements that hurt the Dems. And the DC Dems fold rather than fight the abuse of power head on. Note that Hillary threw Kerrey under the bus for a gaffe while no one took Bush to task for saying that electing Dems meant that the terrorists win. I am not confident that the DC Dems have the moxie to fight a cabal that will break every norm and go to unprecedented extremes.

As long as Newsom's wife is over 21. Along with Debra Bowen, Newsom and Villaraigosa are the Dem heirs apparent, but 2010 is a long time away and I still think the Leg is dysfunctional.

Thanks Mimi.

It's true that they be moderate and conservative Democrats, but I think it's possible that "not your Daddy's" or "not your father's" may be technically incorrect. There were blue dog/conservative Dems pre-'94 than now, so some of them are basically your Dad's dems.

Remember the blue dogs said they felt they got choked by liberals. These candidates are closer to not further from that.

Another thing that might support this, I emailed a political scientist quoted on partisan divisions on Iraq, writing:
"Dear Dr. Jacobson,
I read your commentary on the partisan divide on the Iraq war, and how it's
actually steeper than in Vietnam, in the minds of some scholars. One factor
that might be worth considering is the composition of the parties has
changed substantially from the late 1960s/early 1970s. Conservative
Democrats from the South who were then Dems are now Republicans, and
Rockefeller Republicans tend to be more Independent. If the parties'
constituencies and compositions was as it was during that period, the
polarization would probably shrink some.

-Nadia Hassan

He agreed: "
You are right, one important source of polarization is the
disappearance of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans since
the 1960s."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad